Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Foreign Aid Set To Hit £1 Billion
50 Answers
http://
What? Why? How?
Why does this government and those before it have a propensity for giving away our money on a regular basis, but with eye-watering increases during times of austerity?
Apologies for harping on and I won't post the UKIP Policy link again but this is from it:
Foreign Aid
– UKIP will target foreign aid at healthcare initiatives, inoculations against preventable diseases and clean water programmes with a much-reduced aid budget administered by the Foreign Office.
– British organisations will be offered the contracts to deliver the remaining aid following removal of the EU Procurement Directive.
Again, sounds like common sense to me! Anyone daft enough to disagree?
What? Why? How?
Why does this government and those before it have a propensity for giving away our money on a regular basis, but with eye-watering increases during times of austerity?
Apologies for harping on and I won't post the UKIP Policy link again but this is from it:
Foreign Aid
– UKIP will target foreign aid at healthcare initiatives, inoculations against preventable diseases and clean water programmes with a much-reduced aid budget administered by the Foreign Office.
– British organisations will be offered the contracts to deliver the remaining aid following removal of the EU Procurement Directive.
Again, sounds like common sense to me! Anyone daft enough to disagree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. 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.
I don't have a problem with foreign aid in principle, so long as it's well-targeted and well-spent. In common with a lot of my previous views, I'm dubious about the concept of an arbitrary minimum target. Spending money just for the sake of looking good on the world stage isn't really what foreign aid should be about.
-- answer removed --
As much as a few on here may think regards my views, Foreign should be capped, the aid goes to very wealthy countries that should not have it, India for an example, at this time this country is looking for a cure for a disease that again started from Africa, so I think instead of US ALL THE TIME as goody Goody Hand out we will help you out UK, this money would be better put to use in helping the Fourth coming Privatization of the UK. Wrong or Right?
"..0.7% of GDP doesn't sound a large commitment to me"
"...Fixing on a % if GDP is a very satisfactory way of allocating money for aid projects."
Assessing anything on the basis of a percentage of GDP is ridiculous. GDP is effectively the "turnover" of the country. Whilst the UK's GDP has recently risen, our "profit" has not. The country is still spending far more than it earns. If the UK was a company it would be considerably in debt and that debt continues to rise. Companies are not taxed on their turnover they are taxed on profit. The UK makes no profit and to provide benevolence on the basis of turnover is stupid.
Having said that, even if the country was in profit, provision of overseas aid is rather like standing in the rain tearing up £50 notes. There is nothing in it for the UK. It is a waste of money of the first order and a betrayal of taxpayers' trust.
"...Fixing on a % if GDP is a very satisfactory way of allocating money for aid projects."
Assessing anything on the basis of a percentage of GDP is ridiculous. GDP is effectively the "turnover" of the country. Whilst the UK's GDP has recently risen, our "profit" has not. The country is still spending far more than it earns. If the UK was a company it would be considerably in debt and that debt continues to rise. Companies are not taxed on their turnover they are taxed on profit. The UK makes no profit and to provide benevolence on the basis of turnover is stupid.
Having said that, even if the country was in profit, provision of overseas aid is rather like standing in the rain tearing up £50 notes. There is nothing in it for the UK. It is a waste of money of the first order and a betrayal of taxpayers' trust.
New Judge,
The country has borrowed money since the 17th century. You seem to be claiming we have been bankrupt for four centuries. We haven't.
Borrowing money is a normal process for any country (or company). As long as we are able to function and pay back our debts, then that is perfectly fine.
Part of the reason our economy is stagnant is precisely because companies are unable to loan money from the banks (and go into debt). It is people like you, and the idiots in Osborne's department who have never worked in a commercial environment, who don't think that is a problem.
The country has borrowed money since the 17th century. You seem to be claiming we have been bankrupt for four centuries. We haven't.
Borrowing money is a normal process for any country (or company). As long as we are able to function and pay back our debts, then that is perfectly fine.
Part of the reason our economy is stagnant is precisely because companies are unable to loan money from the banks (and go into debt). It is people like you, and the idiots in Osborne's department who have never worked in a commercial environment, who don't think that is a problem.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.