|
||||||||
Massive UK foreign aid budget subsidises Ethiopean Spice Girls ! |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
They do. The UK's 0.7% of GDP legal target is all well and good if you aren't borrowing tens of billions to finance public spending and cutting domestic spending. A more sensible target would be a % of public spending not GDP as the government doesn't have the value of the UK's GDP at its disposal to spend. The UK spends about 1.6% of public spending on overseas aid and it also contributes separately to the EU's overseas aid through its contributions to the EU budget.
Government tax take as a percentage of GDP Denmark 50.8% Sweden 45.8% Netherlands 39.8% Luxembourg 36.5% UK 34.4% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP UK deficit as a percentage of GDP 4.1% https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover.../aprtojune2016 |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
Quote:
If the UK government tax take as a percentage of GDP was higher it would have no deficit. The UK is in comparison to Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Netherlands a low tax economy.
Government tax take as a percentage of GDP Denmark 50.8% Sweden 45.8% Netherlands 39.8% Luxembourg 36.5% UK 34.4% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP UK deficit as a percentage of GDP 4.1% https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover.../aprtojune2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 30,189
|
Quote:
Did you pull those figures out of your backside?
The TOY industry is only worth £3bn so there's not a chance that £2.5bn has been spent on Xmas cards and £25bn on food?? ![]() Utter nonsense!! You've been on the ![]() Total spend expected to be over £20bn, based on previous years. Which is 4000 times more than people are moaning about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
Indeed but if the UK government's tax take was higher so the deficit was eliminated the UK's GDP would decline.
2015 World Bank figures Luxembourg $101,450 Denmark $52,002 Sweden $50,273 Netherlands $44,433 UK $43,734 If a higher tax take would reduce GDP growth I think depends on where the money is taken from and how it is spent. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
Oh dear...read on
Total spend expected to be over £20bn, based on previous years. Which is 4000 times more than people are moaning about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
Quote:
If a higher tax take would reduce GDP growth I think depends on where the money is taken from and how it is spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
The higher tax take comes from taxpayers and it if it used to eliminate the deficit it can't be spent by the government. The result of that, all other things being equal, is less money is spent in the economy and GDP is lower.
Less borrowing also leads to less spending in the future on interest payments on the debt. |
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
Quote:
Taxation can encourage economic activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
Taxation means money is transferred from individuals and business to government. Now unless those individuals and businesses were not spending it and it was sapre money then it won't generate extra economic activity.
If you say tax savings and non productive assets you encourage spending and productive use of money. Then there are sin taxes on consumption of harmful goods that long-term cost the economy in lost work days and ill health, and there are sections of the economy that are tax free because they are currently illegal. Taxation is a tool that can be used to help increase economic growth. And then there is public spending that can be used to help create a economic environment that is conducive to economic growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 1984
Posts: 7,101
|
Quote:
Why if its a cost effective means of changing culture?
Reducing population growth through fewer marriages at a young age and fewer pregnancies at a young age. Increasing propensity through more girls attending and staying on in education. Improving lives through fewer forced marriages, less violence against girls and women, more financial independence of women. The value for money is going to be assessed based on if more girls are attending and staying in school, if there are lower rates of marriages at a young age, if there are less pregnancies at a young age, etc. Yegna is not just a girl band, the girl band is part of the Girl Effect Yegna multi-platform youth brand. That encompasses films, a radio drama, a radio talk show, a girl band/music, and outreach programmes particularly in rural areas aimed at educating and empowering adolescent girls. A brand that has over 2 million viewers and nearly 2 million listeners. The money is for the entire Girl Effect Yegna multi-platform youth brand. You can bet your life there are some highly paid "charidee" bosses making a tidy sum running that load of crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
You can dress it up with as much modern PC office speak as you like,it's still a bloody liberty and a total piss take.
You can bet your life there are some highly paid "charidee" bosses making a tidy sum running that load of crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 1984
Posts: 7,101
|
Quote:
It is not a bloody liberty total piss take load of crap if it achieves results. It's value for money will be assessed on if more girls attend and stay on in school, if fewer get married at a young age, if there are fewer pregnancies at a young age, etc. Real measurable results.
it's not the British taxpayers job to subsidize their entertainment This "charidee" scam is nothing but a jolly up,disguised as educational As for preventing young pregnancies - Britain could do with some measurable results of its own,in that area Bloody Cheek |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 806
|
Quote:
30 years ago,they were happy to get piped water to their village and some bags of grain,now they expect British people to pay for them to make pop videos
it's not the British taxpayers job to subsidize their entertainment This "charidee" scam is nothing but a jolly up,disguised as educational As for preventing young pregnancies - Britain could do with some measurable results of its own,in that area Bloody Cheek How would you decrease that figure further? |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
30 years ago,they were happy to get piped water to their village and some bags of grain,now they expect British people to pay for them to make pop videos
Quote:
it's not the British taxpayers job to subsidize their entertainment
Quote:
This "charidee" scam is nothing but a jolly up,disguised as educational
The aim is slower population growth, less violence against women and increased education and independence of women. Quote:
As for preventing young pregnancies - Britain could do with some measurable results of its own,in that area
The latest UK under 16 conception rate statistics are also for 2014. 4.4 per thousand women aged 13 to 15 (72% were to women aged 15). The lowest rate since comparable statistics were first produced in 1969 when the rate was 6.9. Of conceptions by women aged under 16 63% led to abortion. Things credited by the government for the drop in UK under 18 conception rate. Shift in girls aspirations towards education. Improved relationship and sex education Improved access to contraception. Perceived stigma of being a teenage mother. Above data from UK ONS. The adolescent conception rate in Ethiopia is 121 per 1,000 adolescent women. Of conceptions by adolescent women 9% led to abortion. Note the figure for conceptions would be much higher if it was just for rural Ethiopia. Data from UN. Quote:
Bloody Cheek
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
|
Quote:
.
Long-term changing a society so it has less poverty is more cost-effective than just providing aid to tackle the effects of poverty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 396
|
Its immoral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,081
|
Quote:
Its immoral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 396
|
Quote:
What is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,867
|
Quote:
"Last Saturday hard done by Brits were estimated to have spent £2.6bn on Christmas cards alone, kicking off a total of £17.6bn of spending on cards.
The poor British public are expected to have spent over £25bn on festive food for Christmas." Man in the pub. I've fixed that for you. By a strange coincidence I was talking to the same source a couple of weeks ago and he was telling me that he would have been a better player than Messi, and that every club in the premiership was after him when he was fourteen, but he sustained a serious injury and that kyboshed his playing career. Then he was refused any more drink and was asked to leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 5,103
|
Quote:
Using UK tax payers money not on UK tax payers, charity should be up to the individual, not the state. Its especially immoral that we are borrowing the money and our children or grandchildren will have to face the consequences of some politicians virtue signalling. Disgusting really.
I guess a different set of moral values. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
|
Quote:
Do we have a right to change society? It is not our society it is theirs. If we provide money to guide their society down a route that it is not naturally taking are we assuming too much in terms of what is best for others? If we use our own society as a measure then it may mean fewer pregnancies, less poverty but more drug problems and a different kind of poverty. We have not solved all the problems of our own society yet with this money we are assuming that pressure on a cultural shift will have a beneficial result where it may also have exactly the opposite effect.
UK poverty is generally nowhere near the severity and scale of poverty in Ethiopia. Do you think more girls attending and staying on in school, fewer getting married at a young age (often through forced marriages), fewer pregnancies at a young age (the risk to health higher the younger), less violence towards girls and women, more independence for women is detrimental to society and causes poverty? Do you think UK society would benefit if we stopped educating girls so much, married them off at a young age, had less contraception, and violence against girls by their family and wives by their husbands was more socially acceptable? |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,081
|
Quote:
Using UK tax payers money not on UK tax payers, charity should be up to the individual, not the state. Its especially immoral that we are borrowing the money and our children or grandchildren will have to face the consequences of some politicians virtue signalling. Disgusting really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,473
|
Quote:
Oh dear...read on
Total spend expected to be over £20bn, based on previous years. Which is 4000 times more than people are moaning about. "Saturday is expected to kick off a £17.6 billion week-long spending spree on cards ahead of Christmas Day next Sunday, with card spending expected to reach more than £3 billion on Friday December 23." ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() :"YouGov’s Christmas spending intentions survey suggests the UK’s total intended festive spend will be around £22.5 billion. " ![]() ![]() ![]() Use your own head for once instead of believing everything you're told, Wales Online are obviously employing people with terrible arithmetic.........and your second link totally disproves your £25bn on food alone, each FAMILY is expected to spend £174 on food, £174 for every person in Britain doesn't make half of £25bn. Apologies as it's off topic but nonsense needs to be called nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
|
Quote:
Do we have a right to change society? It is not our society it is theirs. If we provide money to guide their society down a route that it is not naturally taking are we assuming too much in terms of what is best for others? If we use our own society as a measure then it may mean fewer pregnancies, less poverty but more drug problems and a different kind of poverty. We have not solved all the problems of our own society yet with this money we are assuming that pressure on a cultural shift will have a beneficial result where it may also have exactly the opposite effect.
Maybe we could look down on them and tell them that we would like to help, but would hate to impose our privileged situation on them
|
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
|
Quote:
We are changing it by persuasion not coercion so the choice to change is being made by them.
UK poverty is generally nowhere near the severity and scale of poverty in Ethiopia. Do you think more girls attending and staying on in school, fewer getting married at a young age (often through forced marriages), fewer pregnancies at a young age (the risk to health higher the younger), less violence towards girls and women, more independence for women is detrimental to society and causes poverty? Do you think UK society would benefit if we stopped educating girls so much, married them off at a young age, had less contraception, and violence against girls by their family and wives by their husbands was more socially acceptable? The point of the money is to effect cultural change to decrease poverty. The effects of cultural change are not always positive and can increase a different kind of poverty. It is not persuasion it is coercion because the money is directed to particular pursuits and if one does not pursue the approved route one does not receive the cash. I believe that many things forced on women and young girls are wrong however we have a very significant increase in the incidence of forced marriages female oppression, honour crimes and female genital mutilation here at home yet we are playing to the gallery abroad (and some here at home) by interfering in cultural pursuits abroad as our own protection of female UK citizens is becoming ever more difficult which in part answers your final question becasue all the things you refer to are increasing here in the UK and if not socially acceptable in the wider sense are socially acceptable in a community sense. Cultural enrichment often has many downsides that is evidenced here in the UK and is a rather strong risk in our interference in other countries. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:22.






