• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

One percent

Should the uk tax payer be funding this?

Recommended Posts

Tbh, the best thing for Africa etc is that disease kills more of them.

Let's face it. When we cure diseases in the third world the populations go up, the increased population degrades the local environment by cutting down trees and killing wildlife. You then get a famine and western countries are morally blackmailed into giving money for food etc.

What would you rather have? Elephants in their natural habitat or another billion people in Africa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, One percent said:

As per title

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39590402

The UK government is investing an extra £200m in programmes to fight neglected tropical diseases, which affect more than a billion people in the world's poorest countries.

whilst at the same time, services here are being cut 

It's a tough one. Noble cause, and all that. Some of these diseases are horrible, and preventable! I've had a few.

Still I understand that people still get ill here!O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the view that until we can balance the books and ensure that the necessities are fully funded in the uk, no taxpayer money should be spent on overseas projects or aid.  If individuals wish to fund these things, that's great and altruism at its best.  When it is the taxpayer when wages are stagnating and public services being cut, it is tantamount to theft from the working class by those who wield power 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, One percent said:

I'm of the view that until we can balance the books and ensure that the necessities are fully funded in the uk, no taxpayer money should be spent on overseas projects or aid.  If individuals wish to fund these things, that's great and altruism at its best.  When it is the taxpayer when wages are stagnating and public services being cut, it is tantamount to theft from the working class by those who wield power 

I can't disagree with that, but foreign aid comes from a different budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds nice and all that but, as I get older, the more of the fck up I see made by both Western dogoodery and Africans - both big men and little women.

After the primry school collection for LiveAid where we Fed the Army.

Now, looking at the population boom over the last 30 years and seeing the locust like effect on the countryside.

Maybe Im becoming a cunt in my older age.

Maybe the usual suspect country of Africa are becoming worse.

Thing is, most of Africa is fantatics for growing food and the like. But its not grwon. There appears to be easier money in stealing raping and pillaging.

Maybe Oxfam and the like need to explain why so may counries in Asia, who were suffering similar levels of starvation and death as Africa was, have manged to sort themselves out but Africa has not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One percent said:

A different budget is only the way that the tax payer provided pie has been constructed and divided by civil servants and politicians. 

 

Foreign aid will happen. It's an advertisement for Britishness. How else can the poor buggers afford our tanks and missiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MrPin said:

Foreign aid will happen. It's an advertisement for Britishness. How else can the poor buggers afford our tanks and missiles?

A lot of it also finds its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians and local war lords.  A student of mine a few years ago, from an African country was very much against foreign aid and reckoned that it was actually detrimental to local people because of the corruption   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

A lot of it also finds its way into the pockets of corrupt politicians and local war lords.  A student of mine a few years ago, from an African country was very much against foreign aid and reckoned that it was actually detrimental to local people because of the corruption   

Indeed some of these countries are more bent that Rotherham council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, One percent said:

I'm of the view that until we can balance the books and ensure that the necessities are fully funded in the uk, no taxpayer money should be spent on overseas projects or aid.  If individuals wish to fund these things, that's great and altruism at its best.  When it is the taxpayer when wages are stagnating and public services being cut, it is tantamount to theft from the working class by those who wield power 

This argument though is on a par with "How can we pay to put men on the moon when we can't feed everyone on earth?".

The NHS and benefits, for two, would be bottomless money pits if they were allowed to be. They can always suck up more money so that they can throw it around. Quick housing example - let Housing Benefit be set at the level of top quartile rent and see rents and HB soar.

I agree with some foreign aid. Not mad Cameron's 0.7% of GDP but some.

And I would much rather that it had a clear aim and a measurable outcome like the one in the OP than some vague "raising awareness" PR exercise like that African girl band.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

This argument though is on a par with "How can we pay to put men on the moon when we can't feed everyone on earth?".

The NHS and benefits, for two, would be bottomless money pits if they were allowed to be. They can always suck up more money so that they can throw it around. Quick housing example - let Housing Benefit be set at the level of top quartile rent and see rents and HB soar.

I agree with some foreign aid. Not mad Cameron's 0.7% of GDP but some.

And I would much rather that it had a clear aim and a measurable outcome like the one in the OP than some vague "raising awareness" PR exercise like that African girl band.

Agree with all of this.  Public services including the NHS are is need of sorting out.  There is phenomenal waste.  Take for example the massive rise is classroom assistants in classrooms.  Much of the waste afaict is government driven through the setting of targets and through artificial markets. 

However, I still don't see that it is right, at the moment, to be increasing what is spent on overseas projects. Let's get our own house in order first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, One percent said:

I'm of the view that until we can balance the books and ensure that the necessities are fully funded in the uk, no taxpayer money should be spent on overseas projects or aid.  If individuals wish to fund these things, that's great and altruism at its best.  When it is the taxpayer when wages are stagnating and public services being cut, it is tantamount to theft from the working class by those who wield power 

There's something to this.

Unless theUK is running a current and budget surplus then the there should be no foreign aid.

Always seems aid is done by pols to impress the international bodies, so they can get a job or cocktail party.

I remember that moron Brown doing his Millinium goals for highly indebted countries.

Well, you useless Scots cunt, you've made he UK one of  those countries now. Where's our debt relief?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spygirl said:

There's something to this.

Unless theUK is running a current and budget surplus then the there should be no foreign aid.

Always seems aid is done by pols to impress the international bodies, so they can get a job or cocktail party.

I remember that moron Brown doing his Millinium goals for highly indebted countries.

Well, you useless Scots cunt, you've made he UK one of  those countries now. Where's our debt relief?

 

There's a lot in this. It does seem to be that it is like the bloke in the tiny house with the merc or BMW on the drive.  "Look at me, I'm rich me"  when in reality he hasn't a pot to piss in.

fur coat and no nickers springs to mind 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, One percent said:

Agree with all of this.  Public services including the NHS are is need of sorting out.  There is phenomenal waste.  Take for example the massive rise is classroom assistants in classrooms.  Much of the waste afaict is government driven through the setting of targets and through artificial markets. 

However, I still don't see that it is right, at the moment, to be increasing what is spent on overseas projects. Let's get our own house in order first. 

Yes, but the political will to fix the NHS or schools doesn't seem to be there.  Every time an attempt is made to reform education the NUT brands it an attack on teachers, generates a lot of bad publicity for the government and it gives up.

The NHS seems beyond reform; it needs total structural change but instead of addressing this you get the boot put into "junior" doctors. I struggle to think of a worse job than being a junior doctor in an A&E department; they don't need further demotivating.  I note that there have been a couple of suicides by junior doctors, both women, in the SW over the last year. When your staff are killing themselves rather than continue working you should realise that you are doing something wrong.

I also agree that now is not the time to increase foreign aid, though I wouldn't want it to disappear entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, One percent said:

There's a lot in this. It does seem to be that it is like the bloke in the tiny house with the merc or BMW on the drive.  "Look at me, I'm rich me"  when in reality he hasn't a pot to piss in.

fur coat and no nickers springs to mind 

 

 

I'm not sure that's a fair assumption. I know you do always get one or two houses, on a housing estate, where they have an unexpectedly expensive car, for the property, and I must admit you do wonder why they don't live somewhere better if they can afford that car. However, having said that, it's their choice, they may just like cars and aren't buying it for the social status. I could certainly sell some of my cars to fund a bigger house but I would rather have the cars, or a bigger house for keeping cars in - I know some of them are buying them for social status but there are people out there that just like cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SNACR said:

 

I'm not sure that's a fair assumption. I know you do always get one or two houses, on a housing estate, where they have an unexpectedly expensive car, for the property, and I must admit you do wonder why they don't live somewhere better if they can afford that car. However, having said that, it's their choice, they may just like cars and aren't buying it for the social status. I could certainly sell some of my cars to fund a bigger house but I would rather have the cars, or a bigger house for keeping cars in - I know some of them are buying them for social status but there are people out there that just like cars.

You say 'cars' which suggests to me that you might be a bit of a petrol head. :)  fair doos. This is your hobby.

what I'm talking about is the person who has one car, the cost of which is way out of balance with the drive it is parked on.

i walked past a house yesterday, small semi worth less than 200k with this on the drive

https://tools.mercedes-benz.co.uk/current/passenger-cars/the-new-model-chooser/#!/model/s-class-coupe

each to their own of course but it just shouted at me, "look at me!"  Mind, we have two cars, a 9 year old and a 14 year old.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SNACR said:

 

I'm not sure that's a fair assumption. I know you do always get one or two houses, on a housing estate, where they have an unexpectedly expensive car, for the property, and I must admit you do wonder why they don't live somewhere better if they can afford that car. However, having said that, it's their choice, they may just like cars and aren't buying it for the social status. I could certainly sell some of my cars to fund a bigger house but I would rather have the cars, or a bigger house for keeping cars in - I know some of them are buying them for social status but there are people out there that just like cars.

It's slightly more subtle than that. One guy near me had his own house built on a small corner plot and put it on the market for a third more than it was worth. As well as his tatty white van he has had a Range Rover and now an X5. It just screams DEBT!  With US rates already having risen twice he has IMHO picked the bang wrong time to over leverage. 

I don't however automatically assume that somebody with a nice car and an average house is similarly debt-fuelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SNACR said:

 

I'm not sure that's a fair assumption. I know you do always get one or two houses, on a housing estate, where they have an unexpectedly expensive car, for the property, and I must admit you do wonder why they don't live somewhere better if they can afford that car. However, having said that, it's their choice, they may just like cars and aren't buying it for the social status. I could certainly sell some of my cars to fund a bigger house but I would rather have the cars, or a bigger house for keeping cars in - I know some of them are buying them for social status but there are people out there that just like cars.

Going OT, but I remember a thread on the other place a few years ago where we talked about this phenomenon. 

It used to be nice house = nice car, modest house = modest car. 

Now it's the other way around. Those with wealth seem to hold on to older cars for longer whilst those in modest houses (most likely younger) are more likely to be buying into leases and so have newer cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thombleached said:

Going OT, but I remember a thread on the other place a few years ago where we talked about this phenomenon. 

It used to be nice house = nice car, modest house = modest car. 

Now it's the other way around. Those with wealth seem to hold on to older cars for longer whilst those in modest houses (most likely younger) are more likely to be buying into leases and so have newer cars. 

I go with that for working people, but I have also noticed a fair number of pensioners buying very nice cars; presumably on the basis that they have no reason to save money so why leave their money in the bank.

I think me and @One percent are neck and neck in the "least cars owned" contest as I'm on my fourth and she's on her fifth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

I go with that for working people, but I have also noticed a fair number of pensioners buying very nice cars; presumably on the basis that they have no reason to save money so why leave their money in the bank.

I think me and @One percent are neck and neck in the "least cars owned" contest as I'm on my fourth and she's on her fifth.

That's a good memory Frank, I had forgotten we discussed that.  xD

i really don't see the point in chucking money at new cars if the old one is running well.  Mind, we have a 14 year old rover that we currently cannot get into as the door mechanism has packed up.  We have the new part though and it is on the to do list for next weekend.  60 quid.  I will report back on how it goes. O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I go with that for working people, but I have also noticed a fair number of pensioners buying very nice cars; presumably on the basis that they have no reason to save money so why leave their money in the bank.

I think me and @One percent are neck and neck in the "least cars owned" contest as I'm on my fourth and she's on her fifth.

Can I join the club? I have only bought 6 cars and still own three of them. In 32 years of driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By One percent
      As per title, May makes an election promise to maintain overseas aid.  Howver there are no commensurate guarantees for taxpayers (your tax will have to rise) or pensioners (what do you mean, you've paid in? So what, piss off). 
      http://www.So-Called So-Called So-Called BBC.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39670703
      discuss 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.