we'd save some money if we didn't pay for every tom ,dick n harry around the world and let other countries sort themselves out.
The perceived school of thought is that this money is merely returning to the private sector from whence it was taxed by govt., the other school however says that govt. as the currency issuer always spends first, debiting of bank accounts in the private sector each time it wishes to buy goods and services.
And it's this that allows the private sector to pay taxes and save. In that context govt. deficits indicate that the govt. is in part meeting the savings desires of the non-govt. sector.
The same school of thought says that govt. surpluses are the reverse, an indicator that non-govt. is taking on more debt [in a situation where the economy still grows]. While i have some appreciation of that thinking, i cannot reconcile it with the fact that labour are a bunch of profligate wastrels who've misallocated billions of pounds. So while that may be how the system operates, the reality is that we have a worthless govt. who've not made best use [understatement] of their immense capacity to spend as monopoly issuer of the currency. Therefore they must be compelled to cut back and reverse from the same course of action they've pursued for a decade or get booted out.
Sure laws are in place, but they aren't that effective and policy the subject in matter is another long story that indeed costs even more money.
isn't it weird how it's always people on low pay who say leftie tax the rich systems are best, but they soon change their minds when they start working their way up the pay ladder.
The only way forward is to shrink the "State". Cut child benefits, remove all the think tanks and other govt funded organisations, and severely cut local govts (the wastage and corruption there would shame westminster)
of course none of that will happen because it will mainly effect Labour's core voters and that's what's most important to them.
I see many forms of wasting money every day at school. Why not start in your work place?
Personally, I'd prefer to see whatever wastage level with social support policies to ensure those that need the support get it. Which would you rather? Seeing millions of people with no food and no housing, or seeing those millions fed and housed with a percentage taking advantage?
It is a measure of a civilised society when the poor, needy & disadvantaged are supported by others more fortunate.
Unfortunately there will always be those who try to exploit the system; we should not punish those less fortunate than ourselves or selfishly exploit our advantage.... a lesson our politicians, bankers & the very wealthy still need to learn.
I am prepared to pay my taxes so that people who are genuinely in need get help & support, but I want others in a similar position to me (or better off) to share the burden fairly.....
I would challenge our politicians to rework 'system' to prevent people a) unfairly exploiting the welfare system and b) avoiding paying their fair share of taxes.
Unfortunately I don't think either of our major political parties is up to the task.
Americans get no where near as much support as the British do, and the same with many other countries. I was born and grew up in South Africa, and we get no such thing, the only support policies are in place to support those that really cant. No free medical care, no handouts.
And that's my opinion, if yours is different, than albeit. I've lived in both America and South Africa, and know the differences between worlds, and some work better than others.
Forcing people to work, might even fill the low-end jobs only foreign workers are getting, and when asked why only foreign workers are getting them: Because they don't moan about the job, and just get on and do it, if the same applied and you had to work, they'd work.