Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
overseas aid
6 Answers
Let's say a large group of people (u.k. taxpayers) form a syndicate in 1950,and regularly place sums of money into a kitty, (N.I and Tax) in order to cover their heating costs when they reach retirement age. In 2011, an individual takes £50 per person out of this pot (winter fuel allowance) and proceeds to send £7 billion per year to fund the building of schools, aid education and generally assist Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc. Surely this is theft, and the person responsible a thief? If I am right, why haven't this group of people taken out a civil action against this individual and hauled his sorry arse before the courts?
Bob
Bob
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dylanfanatic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry but this doesn't make much sense. Governments are elected anthey decide how money is to be spent. Aid is given for several reasons, including to help those less fortunate, to be seen in the right light to other countries and to hope for the favour to be repaid in some way through trade deals. The amount given is of course miniscule compared with total government spending.
No it’s not Theft, TCL, I quite agree. More like misappropriation. You could say it’s akin to taking money on the promise of doing something and failing to fulfil some or all of those promises by prioritising the expenditure differently to that envisaged.
The amount may be miniscule when compared to government spending, factor (less than 2%) but it is not miniscule in absolute terms and it is certainly not miniscule if you consider what ten or twelve billion pounds would buy (of the goods and services that UK taxpayers are being told must be cut to reduce costs). For example, the sum would fund the construction of a couple of new hospitals and pay for their staffing costs for about three years; it would build about eight new prisons; it would pay the annual salaries and ancillary costs of about 200,000 nurses or police officers; it would buy a couple of aircraft carriers. It is an enormous sum of money and the fact that the government spends about fifty times that sum each year (and the fact that a lot of it is wasted) is certainly no reason to minimise the impact it would have if used here.
Even more galling is that fact that the expenditure, for some reason many people cannot fathom, is “ring fenced” and actually is set to rise above inflation. It is scandalous that areas of vital expenditure in the UK are being trimmed (I think “cut” is the wrong term) but overseas aid is not subject to the same rigour.
As I said in response to another question, there is a simple way to prove whether people are happy to see this sum spent overseas: return it to taxpayers (about £500 each on average) and suggest that, whilst they are free to keep it and spend it on whatever they wish, recommend that they donate it to an overseas charity of their choice. They could easily measure how “happy” taxpayers are to see their money poured down a variety of overseas drains.
The amount may be miniscule when compared to government spending, factor (less than 2%) but it is not miniscule in absolute terms and it is certainly not miniscule if you consider what ten or twelve billion pounds would buy (of the goods and services that UK taxpayers are being told must be cut to reduce costs). For example, the sum would fund the construction of a couple of new hospitals and pay for their staffing costs for about three years; it would build about eight new prisons; it would pay the annual salaries and ancillary costs of about 200,000 nurses or police officers; it would buy a couple of aircraft carriers. It is an enormous sum of money and the fact that the government spends about fifty times that sum each year (and the fact that a lot of it is wasted) is certainly no reason to minimise the impact it would have if used here.
Even more galling is that fact that the expenditure, for some reason many people cannot fathom, is “ring fenced” and actually is set to rise above inflation. It is scandalous that areas of vital expenditure in the UK are being trimmed (I think “cut” is the wrong term) but overseas aid is not subject to the same rigour.
As I said in response to another question, there is a simple way to prove whether people are happy to see this sum spent overseas: return it to taxpayers (about £500 each on average) and suggest that, whilst they are free to keep it and spend it on whatever they wish, recommend that they donate it to an overseas charity of their choice. They could easily measure how “happy” taxpayers are to see their money poured down a variety of overseas drains.
No, it’s not quite the same, TCL.
Most people can see the benefits or potential benefits to them of much of government spending. Yes, I know that there are odd items that some of us cannot quite grasp. But the “big ticket” items – health, welfare, defence, education – most of us can see the benefit to themselves or others for the huge amount of taxes they pay (even though we may not believe it is being spent as wisely as it might). Furthermore most of us can see the need for public spending to be cut and are prepared, albeit reluctantly, to accept reductions in services for which we pay as the price for reducing the nation's deficit.
The same cannot be said of overseas aid. Few people can see any advantages to UK taxpayers of, say, providing funds to educate foreign children. There are many stories of nations where the population is living in appalling poverty and we learn that the aid provided by UK taxpayers, ostensibly to relieve that poverty, has been used to enable their leaders to live millionaire lifestyles. And yet the funds used to provide services in the UK are subject to cuts, but those for overseas aid are “ring fenced”.
It is disingenuous of the government to ask UK taxpayers to accept cuts in the services from which they benefit and for which they have paid – heftily – whilst expecting them to see above inflation increases in funds from which they derive no benefit at all. In straitened times such as these overseas aid is an indulgent luxury which we cannot afford. There are plenty of countries for whom £12bn is small beer and who provide no foreign aid at all. It is about time some of them took their turn.
Most people can see the benefits or potential benefits to them of much of government spending. Yes, I know that there are odd items that some of us cannot quite grasp. But the “big ticket” items – health, welfare, defence, education – most of us can see the benefit to themselves or others for the huge amount of taxes they pay (even though we may not believe it is being spent as wisely as it might). Furthermore most of us can see the need for public spending to be cut and are prepared, albeit reluctantly, to accept reductions in services for which we pay as the price for reducing the nation's deficit.
The same cannot be said of overseas aid. Few people can see any advantages to UK taxpayers of, say, providing funds to educate foreign children. There are many stories of nations where the population is living in appalling poverty and we learn that the aid provided by UK taxpayers, ostensibly to relieve that poverty, has been used to enable their leaders to live millionaire lifestyles. And yet the funds used to provide services in the UK are subject to cuts, but those for overseas aid are “ring fenced”.
It is disingenuous of the government to ask UK taxpayers to accept cuts in the services from which they benefit and for which they have paid – heftily – whilst expecting them to see above inflation increases in funds from which they derive no benefit at all. In straitened times such as these overseas aid is an indulgent luxury which we cannot afford. There are plenty of countries for whom £12bn is small beer and who provide no foreign aid at all. It is about time some of them took their turn.
1 to 6 of 6
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Food & Drink23 mins ago
ChatterBank59 mins ago
