Welfare cuts.... and foreign aid
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we don't end up going to war in those countries then it's an investment, if we help develop the economy of that country it's an investment,as they will trade more and more as they start to prosper. That's is a simply as I can put it.
Also I sense a lack of consistency on your part, I thought this was about making our public sector more efficient, cutting bureaucracy and waste
and removing people who defraud the system from welfare, not cutting vital services? Are you now saying that the previous government got it right and those nasty old Tories are dismantling it all?
Also I sense a lack of consistency on your part, I thought this was about making our public sector more efficient, cutting bureaucracy and waste
and removing people who defraud the system from welfare, not cutting vital services? Are you now saying that the previous government got it right and those nasty old Tories are dismantling it all?
Yup, deal with the lifestyle unemployed deal with the cheats remove benefits from those who choose not to work and pay less benefits to people with the max claimable being the national average wage - just like the Tories have done. Not a problem with that at all. I do have a problem with the CTC and a couple both earning ust under the max limit keeping CTC and a single person who is just over the limit not able to claim ctc - madness short sighted and poorly thought out!
I am happy for the money saved to be spent for the benefit of the UK population or reducing debt and i have been consistent with that
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you want to contribute to overseas *aid* then please donate generously but don't knock others who wish to keep their UK taxes IN the UK.
Dave
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The total UK budget will increase from £8.4bn this year to £8.7bn in 2011, ... This means that aid will effectively flatline at 0.56%
We saved you £4.2bn already
dl
#36
Scooby Regular
I thought the figure was less than 0.5% of GDP even after the increase. Personally I don't mind that tiny fraction going abroad IF it in some way helps to save the lives of starving children. Actually I'd rather it went there than on benefits for some of the lazy good for nothing scroungers in this country.
Btw, they have scrapped aid to China and Russia
Btw, they have scrapped aid to China and Russia
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me thinks that WE have to prosper first before we can afford to trade with said countries. And as others have said, we have a LACK of money at the moment, in fact 'UK plc' is bankrupt (!), so what are we *giving* to foreign countries? We are actually gving away the taxes that our kids will pay when they're old enough. Mine's just 6 .......
If you want to contribute to overseas *aid* then please donate generously but don't knock others who wish to keep their UK taxes IN the UK.
Dave
If you want to contribute to overseas *aid* then please donate generously but don't knock others who wish to keep their UK taxes IN the UK.
Dave
BTW my kids 4 and 9 and I want them to grow up in a more safe and secure and just world, lower taxes are on the list, but below those.
Also please at least acknowledge the consequences of the policy you support
Only governments have the money and resources to properly enact change, I happily donate to both home and overseas charities but do so in the knowledge that it's only a sticking plaster
Last edited by Martin2005; 21 October 2010 at 07:27 PM.
#40
Scooby Regular
"every society is three hot meals away from anarchy"
maybe the government had that in mind when they bailed the banks out
#41
Scooby Regular
Just look at countries like India. Most of the population is still classed as 'poor' yet there are ultra rich people there and a 'middle class' of about 300 million. There is no revolution there.
We could always burn the poor and this would help cut down on winter fuel supplements
#42
Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not if welfare had never been 'invented'.
Just look at countries like India. Most of the population is still classed as 'poor' yet there are ultra rich people there and a 'middle class' of about 300 million. There is no revolution there.
We could always burn the poor and this would help cut down on winter fuel supplements
Just look at countries like India. Most of the population is still classed as 'poor' yet there are ultra rich people there and a 'middle class' of about 300 million. There is no revolution there.
We could always burn the poor and this would help cut down on winter fuel supplements
#43
Scooby Regular
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/hom...ealestate.html
Anyway the poor in this country would not need to live off the land. You could withdraw all cash benefits and provide food vouchers.
#44
Plenty in India can't make a living off the land. Look at the millions living in shanty towns (as depicted in slum dog) they live virtually next door to people like the richest man in India who is building a personal 'house' for an estimated $1 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/hom...ealestate.html
Anyway the poor in this country would not need to live off the land. You could withdraw all cash benefits and provide food vouchers.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/hom...ealestate.html
Anyway the poor in this country would not need to live off the land. You could withdraw all cash benefits and provide food vouchers.
Food vouchers or cash = same thing.
#45
Foreign aid should not be paid through Taxation, for those who believe in giving money to other countries then they can do this through charities.
Like wise we should not be paying into the EU why are we borrowing money to give to either of these things!!
why cut defence or welfare so that we can give money to other countries that is just so stupid!
Like wise we should not be paying into the EU why are we borrowing money to give to either of these things!!
why cut defence or welfare so that we can give money to other countries that is just so stupid!
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not if welfare had never been 'invented'.
Just look at countries like India. Most of the population is still classed as 'poor' yet there are ultra rich people there and a 'middle class' of about 300 million. There is no revolution there.
We could always burn the poor and this would help cut down on winter fuel supplements
Just look at countries like India. Most of the population is still classed as 'poor' yet there are ultra rich people there and a 'middle class' of about 300 million. There is no revolution there.
We could always burn the poor and this would help cut down on winter fuel supplements
#48
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if we don't send China 40 million quid next year, we will have to go to war with them???????? - 40 million into the Chinese economy is about 17 seconds worth of GDP, but if enough countries send the 40 million quid, they can use it to control currency fluctuations allowing them to have a massive export market thanks to the artifically depressed Yen. So we send them our cash, they use it to ensure their goods are cheaper than ours, so we lose manufacturing capability due to lack of demand, so the govt has less tax revenue, so they send China a bit more???????? WTFThat is as simply as I can put it
#49
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EU thing is complicated. It is similar to Scotland's oil revenue questions. It is virtually impossible to work out if you would be better off or worse off if you go for it on your own
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I would rather have China on our side than not. USA aside they're not many countries that could walk into UK and take over the place. But in 20 years China might have a more aggressive policy towards the West and with their size and population could probably swot away a few nukes. They have started on Africa already.
And it's the Yuan, not the Yen btw (post above).
dl
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Foreign aid to increase by 37%: Osborne finds an extra £4bn to help poor countries
By Gerri Peev
Last updated at 10:48 AM on 21st October 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz134XmFsa3
By Gerri Peev
Last updated at 10:48 AM on 21st October 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz134XmFsa3
And anyway, even if your figure of £8.7bn is true - it's £8.7bn too much
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if we don't send China 40 million quid next year, we will have to go to war with them???????? - 40 million into the Chinese economy is about 17 seconds worth of GDP, but if enough countries send the 40 million quid, they can use it to control currency fluctuations allowing them to have a massive export market thanks to the artifically depressed Yen. So we send them our cash, they use it to ensure their goods are cheaper than ours, so we lose manufacturing capability due to lack of demand, so the govt has less tax revenue, so they send China a bit more???????? WTFThat is as simply as I can put it
BTW I fundamentally disagree with your analysis in China and the role aid plays there.
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you consider 40m trifling and not worth worrying about? - better spent in the UK than on a country who is probably lending us the money to give to them!
#56
Scooby Regular
Yeah maybe we should ask the sick and the starving to stop dying until we have resolved our budget deficit
I think if Britain wants to continue playing a key role in the world we have to get the balance of 'soft' and 'hard' power right. Clearly overseas aid is a key part of our 'soft' power.
I think if Britain wants to continue playing a key role in the world we have to get the balance of 'soft' and 'hard' power right. Clearly overseas aid is a key part of our 'soft' power.
Also: how do you define 'power'?
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look guys there are some inescapable dynamics at play here, the we are living in a more inter-dependent world, things that happen in one part of the world will likely affect us. We cannot ignore this; we cannot pretend that if we pull up the drawbridge that there isn’t going to be implications in the future.
Let’s look at immigration for instance, the poorer people get, the more inclined they are to want to escape that poverty, so if you care about immigration you should care about this issue surely?
If we can help develop the economies of poorer countries then it helps the global economy, and therefore ours.
I think it would be completely short-sighted and utterly counter-productive to withdraw from overseas aid, not to mention immoral. Fortunately the government understand this issue.
I think it’s wrong to keep equating overseas aid to giving to charity, the 2 things are completely different, charity tends to be a short-term fix, overseas aid is (or at least should be) a long term investment in development.
Overseas aid can be justified on pure selfish national interest, that’s before we start caring!
Let’s look at immigration for instance, the poorer people get, the more inclined they are to want to escape that poverty, so if you care about immigration you should care about this issue surely?
If we can help develop the economies of poorer countries then it helps the global economy, and therefore ours.
I think it would be completely short-sighted and utterly counter-productive to withdraw from overseas aid, not to mention immoral. Fortunately the government understand this issue.
I think it’s wrong to keep equating overseas aid to giving to charity, the 2 things are completely different, charity tends to be a short-term fix, overseas aid is (or at least should be) a long term investment in development.
Overseas aid can be justified on pure selfish national interest, that’s before we start caring!
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look guys there are some inescapable dynamics at play here, the we are living in a more inter-dependent world, things that happen in one part of the world will likely affect us. We cannot ignore this; we cannot pretend that if we pull up the drawbridge that there isn’t going to be implications in the future.
Let’s look at immigration for instance, the poorer people get, the more inclined they are to want to escape that poverty, so if you care about immigration you should care about this issue surely?
If we can help develop the economies of poorer countries then it helps the global economy, and therefore ours.
I think it would be completely short-sighted and utterly counter-productive to withdraw from overseas aid, not to mention immoral. Fortunately the government understand this issue.
I think it’s wrong to keep equating overseas aid to giving to charity, the 2 things are completely different, charity tends to be a short-term fix, overseas aid is (or at least should be) a long term investment in development.
Overseas aid can be justified on pure selfish national interest, that’s before we start caring!
Let’s look at immigration for instance, the poorer people get, the more inclined they are to want to escape that poverty, so if you care about immigration you should care about this issue surely?
If we can help develop the economies of poorer countries then it helps the global economy, and therefore ours.
I think it would be completely short-sighted and utterly counter-productive to withdraw from overseas aid, not to mention immoral. Fortunately the government understand this issue.
I think it’s wrong to keep equating overseas aid to giving to charity, the 2 things are completely different, charity tends to be a short-term fix, overseas aid is (or at least should be) a long term investment in development.
Overseas aid can be justified on pure selfish national interest, that’s before we start caring!
Dave
#60
Foreign aid props up and enables corrupt and useless foreign regimes. Just look at Pakistan for example, a corrupt medieval plutocracy spunking its money on nukes and space programs while it needs aid to feed its poor. Obscene.