ChatterBank0 min ago
Is It Now Time That This Foreign Aid Madness Was Ended?
204 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
AOG
That's because I highlighted what the overseas aid budget went to earlier today, and proposed an alternative to reducing the burden on the tax payer.
From there, I was challenged about my solution, and I countered with arguments relating to that.
But you yourself know exactly what it's like when someone derails a thread.
I mean, only last week you introduced Islamic State into a thread concerning Watership Down:
http://
and in another thread, concerning rugby hooligans, you squeezed in a comment about fights at migrant camps:
http://
So, maybe you should accept that thread sometimes veer off, according to the whims of the contributors?
That's because I highlighted what the overseas aid budget went to earlier today, and proposed an alternative to reducing the burden on the tax payer.
From there, I was challenged about my solution, and I countered with arguments relating to that.
But you yourself know exactly what it's like when someone derails a thread.
I mean, only last week you introduced Islamic State into a thread concerning Watership Down:
http://
and in another thread, concerning rugby hooligans, you squeezed in a comment about fights at migrant camps:
http://
So, maybe you should accept that thread sometimes veer off, according to the whims of the contributors?
// Notice how this thread was conveniently moved away from our massive overseas aid budget, to one having a dig at our own domestic benefit budget.//
a rare flash of insight AOG
but someone did suggest an african trip for Sp for some useful purpose - dragging the countries out of their pits I think
Oh ! it was you !
even I am having difficulty scouting the non-sequiturs ....such is their welcome profusion and illogicality
No one has yet said that the daily mail has today said that dark moustachioed muslims will kill us in our beds but after 85 posts, I am sure it will appear...
a rare flash of insight AOG
but someone did suggest an african trip for Sp for some useful purpose - dragging the countries out of their pits I think
Oh ! it was you !
even I am having difficulty scouting the non-sequiturs ....such is their welcome profusion and illogicality
No one has yet said that the daily mail has today said that dark moustachioed muslims will kill us in our beds but after 85 posts, I am sure it will appear...
Oh dear sp, that's a bit of a cop out! I've made more than one post, take another look.
I just find it galling that you're extolling the virtues of Africa to AOG when everyone knows it's a bottomless pit for foreign aid. But the crowning turd in the water pipe is this:
Also...child benefit?
Phase it out.
If you haven't got enough money to afford kids, then you shouldn't have kids.
----------
You need to preach that to the countries that have 5, 6 even 7 child families where famine and drought are perpetual occurrences!
I just find it galling that you're extolling the virtues of Africa to AOG when everyone knows it's a bottomless pit for foreign aid. But the crowning turd in the water pipe is this:
Also...child benefit?
Phase it out.
If you haven't got enough money to afford kids, then you shouldn't have kids.
----------
You need to preach that to the countries that have 5, 6 even 7 child families where famine and drought are perpetual occurrences!
Chilldoubt
I'm afraid other people were posting things that grabbed my attention more than yours.
Not sure where I was extolling the virtues of Africa. Could you point that out to me.
Secondly, you realise why the poor in Africa have a larger number of children that we do...don't you?
I mean, this is something I learned at school about 40 years ago.
People in developing countries have more children for the same reasons why Victoria Britons had larger families...
Higher rates of childhood mortality, coupled with (in relative terms) poor access to contraception.
Seriously...didn't you know that?
If not...why?
I'm afraid other people were posting things that grabbed my attention more than yours.
Not sure where I was extolling the virtues of Africa. Could you point that out to me.
Secondly, you realise why the poor in Africa have a larger number of children that we do...don't you?
I mean, this is something I learned at school about 40 years ago.
People in developing countries have more children for the same reasons why Victoria Britons had larger families...
Higher rates of childhood mortality, coupled with (in relative terms) poor access to contraception.
Seriously...didn't you know that?
If not...why?
interesting point sp
you can be relied on to say something thoughtful rather than ' o mi god we are about to be murdered in our beds tonight .... '
50% of the population is aged under 15 y of age in a lot of African countries - algeria, egypt, zim spring to mind and that is said to be due to vaccination and clean water ( NOT a modern health care system )
but I am not sure if the Victorians purposely had more children as the 'wastage' was greater - I think they couldnt stop having sex quite honestly - dirty lot ! women being in control of their own fertility was a big thing (!) in the first fifty y of the last century - riots over Marie Stopes etc (1927)
you can be relied on to say something thoughtful rather than ' o mi god we are about to be murdered in our beds tonight .... '
50% of the population is aged under 15 y of age in a lot of African countries - algeria, egypt, zim spring to mind and that is said to be due to vaccination and clean water ( NOT a modern health care system )
but I am not sure if the Victorians purposely had more children as the 'wastage' was greater - I think they couldnt stop having sex quite honestly - dirty lot ! women being in control of their own fertility was a big thing (!) in the first fifty y of the last century - riots over Marie Stopes etc (1927)
Por attempt sp.....
Victorian Britons didn't live in drought/famine conditions so there's no comparison. The money wasted in Africa needs to be spent on sterilisation programmes first and foremost before anything else can be addressed.
As it's the most AIDS ravaged continent on the plane you'd have thought those in authority might have had a decent go at tackling it. Until then as you said yourself, if you can't afford kids.....don't have them.
Victorian Britons didn't live in drought/famine conditions so there's no comparison. The money wasted in Africa needs to be spent on sterilisation programmes first and foremost before anything else can be addressed.
As it's the most AIDS ravaged continent on the plane you'd have thought those in authority might have had a decent go at tackling it. Until then as you said yourself, if you can't afford kids.....don't have them.
sp1814
First
'Svejk-I totally understand what you say that. It's because you don't know what you're talking about.'
Then
'Because you're a little bit dim, you won't understand '
However, finally
'Here's my revised proposal for those people who earn below the threshold for NI...their pensions would funded by the state.'
Snigger.
First
'Svejk-I totally understand what you say that. It's because you don't know what you're talking about.'
Then
'Because you're a little bit dim, you won't understand '
However, finally
'Here's my revised proposal for those people who earn below the threshold for NI...their pensions would funded by the state.'
Snigger.
O_G tried, twice and Peter Pedant, once, to point out that the State Earnings-Related Pensions Scheme (SERPS) been like a conveyor belt system. What you pay in, while you work, pays for a retired person's pension and, when your time comes, other workers will pay for yours.
Apparently, the first beneficiaries were suspicious of it because they received without ever having paid in, felt it was storing up trouble for the future and, on principle, some declined to draw it and made do with what they'd saved.
As I said in another thread, in the 50s, lifespans (non-Scottish) were about 70(men)/72+(women), so 5 years of full pension and 2 or more at widow's rate, versus up to (65-14)=51 years of paying in.
Demographics have wrecked the mechanism they set in motion. There is a spike in the population age profile (60s baby boom) which is even compounded by recent downward blips in birth rate.
I apologise for re-explaining what everybody knows but I feel it is necessary to say it as a prelude to claiming that we cannot extricate ourselves from this mechanism quite as simply as the phrase "phase it out".
State pension is ideological and political. The only way you can make it go away is to murder it and shaft millions of people who (erroneously, as set out in the preamble) believe that they "own" "their" pension. It is a *tax* to pay for a *public service*.
Money does not evaporate, by the way. It all gets spent and goes back into the economy, making people like you, sp, rich.
So don't knock it!
Apparently, the first beneficiaries were suspicious of it because they received without ever having paid in, felt it was storing up trouble for the future and, on principle, some declined to draw it and made do with what they'd saved.
As I said in another thread, in the 50s, lifespans (non-Scottish) were about 70(men)/72+(women), so 5 years of full pension and 2 or more at widow's rate, versus up to (65-14)=51 years of paying in.
Demographics have wrecked the mechanism they set in motion. There is a spike in the population age profile (60s baby boom) which is even compounded by recent downward blips in birth rate.
I apologise for re-explaining what everybody knows but I feel it is necessary to say it as a prelude to claiming that we cannot extricate ourselves from this mechanism quite as simply as the phrase "phase it out".
State pension is ideological and political. The only way you can make it go away is to murder it and shaft millions of people who (erroneously, as set out in the preamble) believe that they "own" "their" pension. It is a *tax* to pay for a *public service*.
Money does not evaporate, by the way. It all gets spent and goes back into the economy, making people like you, sp, rich.
So don't knock it!
//
sp1814
Also...child benefit?
Phase it out.
If you haven't got enough money to afford kids, then you shouldn't have kids.
11:55 Mon 04th Apr 2016
//
I had no idea child benefit even existed because the subject never came up in casual conversation and, like some thickie, couldn't work out how people the same pay grade as me could afford to raise kids. I could never work out if they never promoted me in spite of my degree or because of it (some kind of inverted snobbery thing going on, I suspect).
Anyway, at least we're not living in a country which advocates eugenics, eh?
sp1814
Also...child benefit?
Phase it out.
If you haven't got enough money to afford kids, then you shouldn't have kids.
11:55 Mon 04th Apr 2016
//
I had no idea child benefit even existed because the subject never came up in casual conversation and, like some thickie, couldn't work out how people the same pay grade as me could afford to raise kids. I could never work out if they never promoted me in spite of my degree or because of it (some kind of inverted snobbery thing going on, I suspect).
Anyway, at least we're not living in a country which advocates eugenics, eh?
Clarification: You are either in SERPS or "contracted out" of SERPS.
Got a company pension? You are contracted out. You will be eligible for age related element of state pension only.
Private pension, likewise means contracted out. Controversially, the 1990s incentives, when these were kicked off involved free state money to fund-match what people elected to pay in. I don't have a handy link, I just remember thinking, at the time, how it was alright, for some.
Now, since the state is duty bound not to make a profit out of taxpayers and private pension companies are duty bound to make a profit (the word "fees" is such a marvellous cover for it), can you not see how the non-profit route is better for the eventual beneficiary?
You may have been talking at crossed purposes with (Chilldoubt?) regarding this point. I think he was alluding to pension provider profits (gouging clients via fees), whereas you seemed to be referring to investment fund performance?
That latter part is a separate and valid point but aren't the fund manager's who manage the state's assets the same people who would manage the private pension funds pots?
One gigantic fund (state) must be able to make bigger market gains than lots of little funds (private), even if those were spectacularly well managed, surely?
And if they are that well managed, they will use that to justify their fees, all the more and stunt the growth of the customer's pot.
While our economy scuds along at 1.x%, what part of the world is generating all the investment fund performace we rely on to make pension plans work? What happens when said part of the world catches up with us and growth stagnates?
Got a company pension? You are contracted out. You will be eligible for age related element of state pension only.
Private pension, likewise means contracted out. Controversially, the 1990s incentives, when these were kicked off involved free state money to fund-match what people elected to pay in. I don't have a handy link, I just remember thinking, at the time, how it was alright, for some.
Now, since the state is duty bound not to make a profit out of taxpayers and private pension companies are duty bound to make a profit (the word "fees" is such a marvellous cover for it), can you not see how the non-profit route is better for the eventual beneficiary?
You may have been talking at crossed purposes with (Chilldoubt?) regarding this point. I think he was alluding to pension provider profits (gouging clients via fees), whereas you seemed to be referring to investment fund performance?
That latter part is a separate and valid point but aren't the fund manager's who manage the state's assets the same people who would manage the private pension funds pots?
One gigantic fund (state) must be able to make bigger market gains than lots of little funds (private), even if those were spectacularly well managed, surely?
And if they are that well managed, they will use that to justify their fees, all the more and stunt the growth of the customer's pot.
While our economy scuds along at 1.x%, what part of the world is generating all the investment fund performace we rely on to make pension plans work? What happens when said part of the world catches up with us and growth stagnates?
Chilldoubt
Agreed...education (rather than adherence to dangerous religious doctrine, especially that espoused by the Catholic Church) is what is required to combat the HIV epidemic in Africa.
But can you clarify what my por [sic] attempt is?
Is it not true that that there is a high incidence of infant mortality in many drought-affected regions in the African subcontinent? Don't you think this would impact on the number of children parents attempt to have?
Agreed...education (rather than adherence to dangerous religious doctrine, especially that espoused by the Catholic Church) is what is required to combat the HIV epidemic in Africa.
But can you clarify what my por [sic] attempt is?
Is it not true that that there is a high incidence of infant mortality in many drought-affected regions in the African subcontinent? Don't you think this would impact on the number of children parents attempt to have?
AOG
No, I really don't need to file anything away. They're so regular that...etc.
But I'm sure you understand that practically all threads on the News section will deviate from the OP, simply because that's the way debates, that don't have a Chair will go.
If each thread had an adjudicator, the topic would stay on course...but you left your own thread (as many of us have to do, practically speaking), so there was nobody to rein the topic back to the source.
No, I really don't need to file anything away. They're so regular that...etc.
But I'm sure you understand that practically all threads on the News section will deviate from the OP, simply because that's the way debates, that don't have a Chair will go.
If each thread had an adjudicator, the topic would stay on course...but you left your own thread (as many of us have to do, practically speaking), so there was nobody to rein the topic back to the source.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News21 mins ago
Food & Drink25 mins ago
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.