Body & Soul8 mins ago
All This Cash, From A Country That Cannot Afford To Look After It's Own Elderly?
58 Answers
http:// www.exp ress.co .uk/new s/polit ics/744 154/The resa-Ma y-pledg es-fore ign-aid -money- Syria-A leppo-r ebels-A ssad-Ru ssia
Four random headlines from September of this year.
UK Government promises extra £103mn aid to South Sudan
Britain pledges £750m to help improve the lives of Afghans
Theresa May to send hundreds of troops to Somalia and £660 million ...
Theresa May commits £750 million to help tackle migrant crisis
Just in those 5 examples I make that £2,283 million
Four random headlines from September of this year.
UK Government promises extra £103mn aid to South Sudan
Britain pledges £750m to help improve the lives of Afghans
Theresa May to send hundreds of troops to Somalia and £660 million ...
Theresa May commits £750 million to help tackle migrant crisis
Just in those 5 examples I make that £2,283 million
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.
-- answer removed --
“The UK currently pays £80BILLION annually in the state pension.”
The State Pension is a giant Ponzi scheme. Many pensioners have fully funded their pension (and some) throughout their working lives. If it were a proper pension scheme the administrators would have invested the contributions ready for payment when required. Pensioners cannot be blamed when that was not done and now current pensions must be paid from current contributions.
Furthermore, many people have made little or no contributions but receive a “pension” (which is actually a retirement age benefit) often in excess of those who have fully funded theirs. Pensions payable to those who have fully funded them are perfectly sustainable.
To suggest that it is acceptable to borrow money to pay out in foreign aid because at the same time money is borrowed to pay pensions is crass. The notion that there should be legislation which dictates that the UK must pay a certain percentage of its GDP (however “small”) regardless of its own financial position sums up adequately the contempt in which politicians hold the electorate. But giving other people’s money away makes them feel good.
The State Pension is a giant Ponzi scheme. Many pensioners have fully funded their pension (and some) throughout their working lives. If it were a proper pension scheme the administrators would have invested the contributions ready for payment when required. Pensioners cannot be blamed when that was not done and now current pensions must be paid from current contributions.
Furthermore, many people have made little or no contributions but receive a “pension” (which is actually a retirement age benefit) often in excess of those who have fully funded theirs. Pensions payable to those who have fully funded them are perfectly sustainable.
To suggest that it is acceptable to borrow money to pay out in foreign aid because at the same time money is borrowed to pay pensions is crass. The notion that there should be legislation which dictates that the UK must pay a certain percentage of its GDP (however “small”) regardless of its own financial position sums up adequately the contempt in which politicians hold the electorate. But giving other people’s money away makes them feel good.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
NJ,
I agree it is ridiculous to borrow the £12 Billion, but that is because Chancellors keep setting deficit budgets. And that is no accident, it is deliberate. If business was booming, and we were making a surplus, them the 0.7% would be easier to swallow. But we are not.
Osborne was aiming for a surplus in 2020, but before he was evicted, he admitted he wasn't going to achieve it. And Hammond has indictated thatAusterity has been abandoned, so things will only get worse.
I agree it is ridiculous to borrow the £12 Billion, but that is because Chancellors keep setting deficit budgets. And that is no accident, it is deliberate. If business was booming, and we were making a surplus, them the 0.7% would be easier to swallow. But we are not.
Osborne was aiming for a surplus in 2020, but before he was evicted, he admitted he wasn't going to achieve it. And Hammond has indictated thatAusterity has been abandoned, so things will only get worse.
-- answer removed --
Wacker1111
It is not a scam, it is more like a fixed lottery.
The developed world have this 0.7% target not just the UK. So there is a huge pot of hundreds of $Billions of aid that the the under develpoed world is competing for. The result is that we are not providing aid, we are buying influence. That's just a nice way of saying it is largely a fund to distribute Bribes.
It is not a scam, it is more like a fixed lottery.
The developed world have this 0.7% target not just the UK. So there is a huge pot of hundreds of $Billions of aid that the the under develpoed world is competing for. The result is that we are not providing aid, we are buying influence. That's just a nice way of saying it is largely a fund to distribute Bribes.
In defence of fiction-factory - I think the pension/charity comment has been misinterpreted here, and wasn’t suggesting that pensions are classed as or should be funded by charity.
When I said:
“I firmly believe that ALL foreign aid should be funded by personal charitable donations”
I think ff was asking where you draw the line as far as charity funding goes, which is why I replied:
“Assuming that you are not serious, fiction-factory, as UK taxes are raised to fund (funnily enough) the UK NHS the UK benefits system and UK pensions”.
Baldric’s nasty comment was unwarranted.
When I said:
“I firmly believe that ALL foreign aid should be funded by personal charitable donations”
I think ff was asking where you draw the line as far as charity funding goes, which is why I replied:
“Assuming that you are not serious, fiction-factory, as UK taxes are raised to fund (funnily enough) the UK NHS the UK benefits system and UK pensions”.
Baldric’s nasty comment was unwarranted.
Thanks Bigbad for clarifying things for Baldric and anyone else who may have misunderstood my question. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm I would not want to see pensioners relying on charities. As for foreign aid spending I wouldn't mind if it were reduced to 0.5% of GDP in certain cases or increased to nearer 1% in good times if the expenditure can be justified.
I have no issue with those who want to spend a bit less or a bit more. I just don't see foreign aid as all wasted money- some is like charity to help those in real need (famine, disasters), some is an investments aimed at winning future deals and some is a form of bribe to get political influence, and I think an elected government should make those decisions.
I have no issue with those who want to spend a bit less or a bit more. I just don't see foreign aid as all wasted money- some is like charity to help those in real need (famine, disasters), some is an investments aimed at winning future deals and some is a form of bribe to get political influence, and I think an elected government should make those decisions.
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.