The Budget

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Just goes to show how a life "overlooking at ducks and geese" can make people out of touch with reality.

I've lived all over the UK, and travelled the world widely, including to many third world countries, where I saw some of these problems first hand.

Having the ability to see things as they really are, rather than through a dodgy pair of party political specs, is a real eye opener.

You should try it.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Second option would be international development. We're not saying you should just throw money at a problem, it has to be specifically targeted money that actually helps people get out of the situation they're in. This is much more than just giving some foreign government a wad of cash.

That's not happening.

A third of third world aid is spent on arms, designed to kill, rather than help those in need.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

Some humanitarian aid is given, knowing it will be diverted into arms, to bolster various supported regimes.

'A recent document released by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has revealed that millions of dollars, allocated for victims of the Ethiopian famine of 1984-85, went into buying weapons for rebellions. However, Robert Gates - President Obama’s Secretary of Defense said the suggestion cannot be ruled out that the CIA not only knew about, but supported, the diversion of aid funds to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF)'
EthioGuardian.com ETG: Ethiopia: Aid money was spent on arms


I do think the majority of hardworking British taxpayers, do get sick and fed up of this happening, time after time.

They can see plenty of things their taxes could help to improve in this country, rather than be spent on arming third world dictators.

Britain is one of the biggest donors on the planet, when it comes to overseas aid, and as a people they do realise there are genuine needs, and issues which need addressing. You only have to see how much they choose to give, when it comes to disasters in the world, from the famine in Ethiopia in the eighties, to the devastation in Haiti following the earthquake.

However they do also see the problems on their own doorstep, and some will think that their taxes would be better off spent at home, rather than perhaps finding it's way into the pocket of some western arms dealer, which does happen. Fact.

[garinda]

Official Development Assistance by country in absolute terms

• 1. United States - $22.739 billion
• 2. United Kingdom - $12.607 billion
• 3. Japan - $11.608 billion
• 4. France - $10.448 billion
• 5. Germany - $10.351 billion
• 6. Netherlands - $5.452 billion
• 7. Sweden - $3.962 billion
• 8. Spain - $3.801 billion
• 9. Canada - $3.731 billion
• 10. Italy - $3.672 billion
• 11. Norway - $2.946 billion
• 12. Denmark - $2.234 billion
• 13. Australia - $2.128 billion
• 14. Belgium - $1.968 billion
• 15. Switzerland - $1.647 billion
• 16. Austria - $1.513 billion
• 17. Ireland - $997 million
• 18. Finland - $826 million
• 19. Portugal - $391 million
• 20. Greece - $384 million
• 21. Luxembourg - $291 million
• 22. New Zealand - $257 million

List of most charitable countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cashman]

seems "ALL" our E.U. partners donate "Billions" less than the good old U.K. Do they not care? or is the answer there not as stupid?

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by katex

I don't like the freeze on personal allowance either .. still cutting into my pension whilst the price of goods increase ...

With the freeze in personal allowance and below price rise in the basic state pension, it makes single pensioners over 65 £110 worse off. Disgraceful.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

With the freeze in personal allowance and below price rise in the basic state pension, it makes single pensioners over 65 £110 worse off. Disgraceful.

Talking of new allowances, and proposed changes, what do you think about the proposals to change the level at which inheritance tax is paid?

Originally Posted by garinda

'Raising the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1 million.'
The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Economy

Estimated house price £352,456.00
Property details for 11 Wildings Lane Lytham St. Annes FY8 3RJ - Zoopla!

At least some people, and their neighbours will benefit from the proposed Conservative tax changes.

Though it probably won't affect too many of us here in Hyndburn, who'll have to pay for these changes through cuts in services.

A case of give and take.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Talking of new allowances, and proposed changes, what do you think about the proposals to change the level at which inheritance tax is paid?

I think it's a great idea. Inheritance tax was only ever meant to tax the most wealthy. Only millionaires should be paying it. Many people have worked hard all their lives and wish to pass assets on to their loved ones, rather than the state taking it away from them.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

I think it's a great idea. Inheritance tax was only ever meant to tax the most wealthy. Only millionaires should be paying it. Many people have worked hard all their lives and wish to pass assets on to their loved ones, rather than the state taking it away from them.

Seems rather unfair on millionaires, to be singled out.

Why that particular threshold?

Hardly an encouragement for enterpise, and industriousness.

Soulds quite like communism.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Seems rather unfair on millionaires, to be singled out.

Why that particular threshold?

Hardly an encouragement for enterpise, and industriousness.

Soulds quite like communism.

The richest can afford to pay a little more in taxation than the poorest.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The richest can afford to pay a little more in taxation than the poorest.

We'll have to disagree on that one.

I think everyone should pay the same rate of tax.

True equality means everyone should pay the same percentage of their income in tax, which of course means in financial terms, the wealthier will pay more.

Not party politics, just my own thoughts, as someone who believes in the concept of equality, and that it should be applicable to all, otherwise it's a nonsense.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The richest can afford to pay a little more in taxation than the poorest.

When talking about the 'richest', that's a term that's open to debate.

To many people in Hyndburn, someone like Karen Buckley, who lives in a property valued at over a third of a million pounds, and who will no longer be eligible for inheritance tax if the Conservatives win the next election, would be perhaps seen as being 'rich'.

I suppose the term's relative, and depends on the value of the property you're sitting in, whilst pondering the concept, and definition of 'rich'.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by garinda

When talking about the 'richest', that's a term that's open to debate.

To many people in Hyndburn, someone like Karen Buckley, who lives in a property valued at over a third of a million pounds, and who will no longer be eligible for inheritance tax if the Conservatives win the next election, would be perhaps seen as being 'rich'.

I suppose the term's relative, and depends on the value of the property you're sitting in, whilst pondering the concept, and definition of 'rich'.

I suppose to someone who lives in Notting Hill, like David Cameron, where a third of a million pounds would buy a pokey one bedroomed studio flat, if you're lucky, someone living in a big detached house on the Lancashire coast, valued at the same price of £1/3 million pounds, wouldn't be considered particularly rich.

The concept is all relative.

Luckily the people in Hyndburn are 'rich', in that they mostly have a good sense of humour.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

Karen Buckley, who lives in a property valued at over a third of a million pounds, and who will no longer be eligible for inheritance tax if the Conservatives or Labour win the next election..

Better.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by garinda

We'll have to disagree on that one.

I think everyone should pay the same rate of tax.

True equality means everyone should pay the same percentage of their income in tax, which of course means in financial terms, the wealthier will pay more.

Not party politics, just my own thoughts, as someone who believes in the concept of equality, and that it should be applicable to all, otherwise it's a nonsense.

The poorest in society are already taxed far too much. They'd have to make up the shortfall if we had a completely flat tax rate. That is wrong in my opinion.