Where Does The Money Go To ? ? ?

[Old Timer]

As I get older I fail to see why, when we are one of the highest taxed Countries in the EU, we never seem to have money for anything.

The money has to be going somewhere, and the question is only highlighted by the fact that European health systems seem to operate to much higher standards than ours, and Europeans seem to have both more disposable income, and better working conditions.

In the UK our working hours continue to rise and our working days lengthen through a managerial pressure that seems to be missing elsewhere. At the same time we seem to pay more and more tax but nothing ever seems to improve.

 

[The Snap]

Unnecessary involvement in conflict in Afghanistan, unnecessary investment in nuclear defences, MP's expenses etc etc...

EDIT: The EU...!

 

[ainsworth74]

The Department for International Development. We're in the biggest spending crisis since the Second World War yet we are increasing the amount of money we send overseas to £7.8 billion in 2010/11! That's aircraft carriers for the services, or schools, or hospital beds or simply paying off our debts!

 

[flymo]

The Department for International Development.

I must admit I chuckled when I saw that reply because recently whilst browsing for some info on St. Helena was directed to the DFID website. Anyway a couple of clicks later here & here I came across some info on a proposed new airport there. This airport is only the drop in the ocean in the whole scheme of things but it is amazing how much money is spent on things you've never even thought of before.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Among western european countries, Britain isn't that highly taxed, it's only when you compare the UK with eastern europe and ireland that the tax discrepancy is against the UK.

Aside form all the things that OT mentioned, britain does have an unfortunate tendency of doing things on the cheap and then spending a fortune bringing it up to scratch. A good example of this is ECML electrification

 

[ainsworth74]

I must admit I chuckled when I saw that reply because recently whilst browsing for some info on St. Helena was directed to the DFID website.

I'm not suggesting that we get rid of all of the DFID's budget and supporting British Overseas Territories with its funding is something which I have no issue with. However I don't think they need £7.8b when it could be used elsewhere.

 

[imagination]

I believe we have a higher defence budget as a % of our gdp than any other EU country?

Which is big.

Welfare, health and defence are the biggest parts of the budget.

The NHS isnt ridiculously expensive though - we spend barely more on public healthcare per person than the US does and they spend vastly more on private than we do in total.

Our welfare state is generous but not as large as in many other european countries. Raising retirement age would help with this no end.

We spend a vast amount on defence. In my opinion a ridiculous amount. People argue that we need defence to defend our nation but we havent had to fend off an invasion in 70 years, there's no sign that we will do in the near future, and we keep rushing into pointless wars. We have far higher defence spending per person than almost any other EU country and they don't get invaded. So why should we fear that we would?

Scrapping trident would be a good start, saving around £45-55bn over the course of 25 years by scrapping something that gains us absolutely nothing.

Oh and we don't actually have that high a tax rate.

 

[NightatLaira]

It's very easy to slate defence spending... Sometimes people forget the unseen side it gives back.

Without the armed forces - that's a load more people back on the dole.

BAe Systems wouldn't exist - more on the dole. Stock market would also go down.

Backup for the emergency services as home guard, also for rescue from floods, etc. RAF & RN practically 'run' coastal air rescue these days... RNLI are great but need a serious helping hand.

Training for thousands of people who learn trades and skills in the armed forces and then leave to set up private businesses, etc, etc - which then give back money in the form of tax to the government.



Yeah - getting rid of the armed forces would save a lot in the interim - but look at the long-run. I think the coalition's got the right idea so far though: sell-off the tornadoes, keep the harriers, keep the eurofighters, but cancel the buying of next generation fighters and wait until the eurofighters are properly out of date. Keep the planned carriers - our existing ones are SO out of date! And sell of some of the rusting frigattes and destroyers which are no good to anyone anyway.

I do think we should get India to build our nuclear weapons though - they would do it for a fraction of the cost it would cost us. And the protestors couldn't complain then either...

 

[ainsworth74]

I do think we should get India to build our nuclear weapons though - they would do it for a fraction of the cost it would cost us. And the protestors couldn't complain then either...

Whilst its a nice idea, a few issues that crop up to my mind. Firstly I don't trust that Indian nuclear technology is anywhere near advanced enough to produce reliable warheads (miniaturised SLBM warheads are hard). Second problem the Indians haven't produced a functioning SLBM. But the main problem however is that the UK is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, buying nuclear weapons from India could be seen as breaking that particular treaty. Trident only works because we get only missiles from the US, the warheads are UK designed and built.

 

[NightatLaira]

Whilst its a nice idea, a few issues that crop up to my mind. Firstly I don't trust that Indian nuclear technology is anywhere near advanced enough to produce reliable warheads (miniaturised SLBM warheads are hard). Second problem the Indians haven't produced a functioning SLBM. But the main problem however is that the UK is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, buying nuclear weapons from India could be seen as breaking that particular treaty. Trident only works because we get only missiles from the US, the warheads are UK designed and built.

Fair point - I didn't realise this.

On the flip side - India have been a great help in recent years in buying-off our old stuff... In the past they bought RAF Jaguars, Harriers and HMS Hermes (aircraft carrier).

 

[gordonthemoron]

are there any old V2 rockets available?

 

[At_traction]

Yeah - getting rid of the armed forces would save a lot in the interim - but look at the long-run. I think the coalition's got the right idea so far though: sell-off the tornadoes, keep the harriers, keep the eurofighters, but cancel the buying of next generation fighters and wait until the eurofighters are properly out of date. Keep the planned carriers - our existing ones are SO out of date! And sell of some of the rusting frigattes and destroyers which are no good to anyone anyway.

If the RN is going to obtain the new QE Class carriers, they'd have to go ahead with the F-35s too, unless BAe is prepared to develop a navalized version of the Typhoon. If the F-35 is obtained for the RAF as well as the FAA (Fleet Air Arm), that would enable to keep RAF's VTOL ability with a smooth transition from the latest Harriers. Agree about the keeping of Typhoons as conventional air-superiority/strike machines for a suitably long time, tho'.

The replacement of the carriers would most likely require a modernization of other assets in a task force, so the RN would need new surface combatants anyway, like the new Type 45 DDs. Then there is of course the question of blue water vs. littoral capabilities. Would a fixed-wing task force lead to a perceived capability to conduct landing operations - there seems to be recent additions to that "front" - that would increase the amount of escort vessels needed to carry out both types of operation.

People argue that we need defence to defend our nation but we havent had to fend off an invasion in 70 years, there's no sign that we will do in the near future, and we keep rushing into pointless wars.

In hindsight it can be seen as a folly (except perhaps for the part that the Other Side may have had to overextend himself economically even more than the west), but at the time the Cold War defences were seen as a solution to a rather real threat. In addition to the Mid-Europe situation, the GIUK detection and defence with the RN and the RAF from both air and surface/subsurface elements was seen as a necessary involvement. That all, even if one took the nuclear deterrent out of the equation, starting from the fact that the UK had to develop its first thermonuclear production devices on its own after a US scientific intelligence clampdown. Polarises and Trident D-5s they were, however, very happy to sell...

 

[ainsworth74]

On the flip side - India have been a great help in recent years in buying-off our old stuff... In the past they bought RAF Jaguars, Harriers and HMS Hermes (aircraft carrier).

Indeed they have but that's just the point we have stuff they want, they don't have much that we would want!

I'm always impressed by the longevity of HMS Hermes (now the INS Viraat) commissioned into the Royal Navy in 1959 and still serving the Indian Navy over 50 years later! And she may make it to 60

 

[222666]

I believe we have a higher defence budget as a % of our gdp than any other EU country?

Which is big.

Welfare, health and defence are the biggest parts of the budget.

The NHS isnt ridiculously expensive though - we spend barely more on public healthcare per person than the US does and they spend vastly more on private than we do in total.

Our welfare state is generous but not as large as in many other european countries. Raising retirement age would help with this no end.

We spend a vast amount on defence. In my opinion a ridiculous amount. People argue that we need defence to defend our nation but we havent had to fend off an invasion in 70 years, there's no sign that we will do in the near future, and we keep rushing into pointless wars. We have far higher defence spending per person than almost any other EU country and they don't get invaded. So why should we fear that we would?

Scrapping trident would be a good start, saving around £45-55bn over the course of 25 years by scrapping something that gains us absolutely nothing.

Oh and we don't actually have that high a tax rate.

I think they're missing a trick by not making America shell out for all this "defence", especially if it's mostly NATO offensive gear we're "supposed" to be having :roll:. How much would the defense budget be if it was just for our own military interests (ie: Falklands, or the outside chance of Northern Ireland conflicts re-appearing)?

I think allowing the US to base themselves here should cost them, not us, including arming us with the latest equipment if they want us to be part of their military. Trident should go, America can put their own here at their cost if they still insist on us being 'strategic location'.

I can see that Harriers are old, & Eurofighter is not enough - so we could do with our own Lockheed F35-Bs (modern stealth replacement for Harrier), but we don't really need to continue with MQ-9 drones? Sure they'd be useful but they're a tool of the US for THEIR "war on terror". Again, if America dictated we should keep them, they should pay?

Does anyone know, are we still getting the F35B? Could we ever afford it?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The EU like to take all our money...

 

[class156]

Consultants...., paying people hundreds of thousands of pounds just to see if something would be a good idea seems a bit of a rip off.

 

[LE Greys]

I think they're missing a trick by not making America shell out for all this "defence", especially if it's mostly NATO offensive gear we're "supposed" to be having :roll:. How much would the defense budget be if it was just for our own military interests (ie: Falklands, or the outside chance of Northern Ireland conflicts re-appearing)?

I think allowing the US to base themselves here should cost them, not us, including arming us with the latest equipment if they want us to be part of their military. Trident should go, America can put their own here at their cost if they still insist on us being 'strategic location'.

I can see that Harriers are old, & Eurofighter is not enough - so we could do with our own Lockheed F35-Bs (modern stealth replacement for Harrier), but we don't really need to continue with MQ-9 drones? Sure they'd be useful but they're a tool of the US for THEIR "war on terror". Again, if America dictated we should keep them, they should pay?

Does anyone know, are we still getting the F35B? Could we ever afford it?

I'm actually beginning to think that our nuclear weapons are harming our national security. If we cut back much more on conventional forces, then we might as well hand the Falklands to Argentina on a plate if they ever decided to take them. 20,000 million is a lot of money for four submarines, when it could pay for a third carrier, additional escort ships and support vessels, an air wing and still have change left over to keep the Tornados flying until they can be replaced (they're getting on a bit now, maintenance cost tends to go up for old airframes). It's more important that we can defend our territory from anyone who tries to take it rather than blast half of Russia to radioactive slag. Besides, no nuclear-armed state, even North Korea, has anything to gain by attacking a NATO country unless they want to take on the USA. We're no threat to North Korea, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia or the USA. France might have something to gain (if you watch Yes Minister anyway).

Incidentally, the F-35 can't take off vertically. This means that it isn't so effectively deployable as the Harrier, which can operate off the helicopter decks of frigates, or supermarket car parks if necessary. Some aircraft went out to the South Atlantic by using container ships as refuelling stops. We really ought to cancel our order if they don't do something about this, which would have been built into the P-1154 supersonic Harrier if Hawker had ever had the chance to build it.

 

[At_traction]

I think they're missing a trick by not making America shell out for all this "defence", especially if it's mostly NATO offensive gear we're "supposed" to be having :roll:. How much would the defense budget be if it was just for our own military interests (ie: Falklands, or the outside chance of Northern Ireland conflicts re-appearing)?

Although the foreign commitments alongside the US have indeed taken their financial burden, when it comes to arming the forces, one can't merely prepare for the "previous war". There has to be some contingency, and as a western country operating with generally similar "NATO-approved" (to a certain extent) equipment and procedures a certain standardization (read. yank-ware) would be operationally advantageous. Of course there are a ton of differences between, say, the US and the UK forces, but the concentration of arms industries into fewer conglomerates also works toward this "globalization".

I think allowing the US to base themselves here should cost them, not us, including arming us with the latest equipment if they want us to be part of their military. Trident should go, America can put their own here at their cost if they still insist on us being 'strategic location'.

I think that while these choices have been taken mainly as policymaking of endearment towards the US, they are, nevertheless, sovereign decisions.

Does anyone know, are we still getting the F35B? Could we ever afford it?

A bl**dy good question there...

Incidentally, the F-35 can't take off vertically. This means that it isn't so effectively deployable as the Harrier, which can operate off the helicopter decks of frigates, or supermarket car parks if necessary. Some aircraft went out to the South Atlantic by using container ships as refuelling stops.

The early Sea Harrier had considerably shorter "legs" than even the F-35B, not to mention the dedicated flat top version C model. (The F-35C for the FAA might be an option to be considered as the QE Class carriers would be nevertheless a leap in size from the Invincible Class and could operate the much more potent C version just as well.) Vertical take-off is "economically" viable (in terms of fuel consumption, engine stress and carrier deck steel plating wear) only with relatively light ordnance load. With the fixed-wing, loiter-capable AEW (as well as air refuelling) capabilities of a large-size carrier's air wing, the VTOL scrambleabilty (is that a word?) might not be such a requirement.

As for the land-based version, I guess the question is whether two football fields worth of undamaged road is enough for take-off. At least that's what the Swedish thought with their AJ 37 and JAS 39 fighters (the latter of which takes off within eight football fields).

 

[Greenback]

I'm actually beginning to think that our nuclear weapons are harming our national security. If we cut back much more on conventional forces, then we might as well hand the Falklands to Argentina on a plate if they ever decided to take them. 20,000 million is a lot of money for four submarines, when it could pay for a third carrier, additional escort ships and support vessels, an air wing and still have change left over to keep the Tornados flying until they can be replaced (they're getting on a bit now, maintenance cost tends to go up for old airframes). It's more important that we can defend our territory from anyone who tries to take it rather than blast half of Russia to radioactive slag. Besides, no nuclear-armed state, even North Korea, has anything to gain by attacking a NATO country unless they want to take on the USA. We're no threat to North Korea, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia or the USA. France might have something to gain (if you watch Yes Minister anyway).QUOTE]

You are correct. IMHO, a nuclear deterrent is unnecessary, but politicians seem to want it/ They may fear it's the only way to ensure that Britain retains a permanent seat on the UN Security Council!

 

[Drsatan]

I find it surprising that Britain has the largest defence budget in Europe, yet much of it is squandered by the MOD. The MOD spent £200 million on refurbishing its headquarters in Whitehall, yet many soldiers live in sub-standard accommodation. The MOD also decided it couldn't stump up the training budget for the Territorial Army. Finally, the MOD ordered eight Chinooks in 1995, which from 2001 have been stored in a warehouse because the MOD forgot to ask Boeing for the software codes necessary to fly them. And don't forget that the Future Rapid Effects System project is ridiculously over-budget and has been delayed on several considerations.

What's wrong though is that the Army is becoming increasingly overstretched: Britain participated in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan while troop numbers were being cut. Either the Army is boosted to its full troop complement of 125,000 or Britain stops participating in Uncle Sams wars (I would prefer both to happen)

 

[Greenback]

So would I!

There has been a lot of wasted money in the UK, and not just by the MoD. We seem to have an insatiable desire for reorganisations in the public sector, which always seem to cost a lot of money and produce no discernible improvements. Jobcentres were closed and staffing cut back, costing a lot of money in redundancy payments, only for more staff to be needed and recruited a couple of years ago.

When you add in the huge consultants fees that are paid in order to be told the bloody obvious, you cna see where a lot of the money that is raised is compeltely wasted.

 

[Drsatan]

There has been a lot of wasted money in the UK, and not just by the MoD. We seem to have an insatiable desire for reorganisations in the public sector, which always seem to cost a lot of money and produce no discernible improvements. .

Hear Hear! While cutting back spending on services people need like rubbish collection, care homes, libraries and so on, council chief executives give themselves bumper pay rises. In July six chief executives of Southampton City Council awarded themselves pay rises of almost £1 million http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/dis....Nearly___1m_paid_to_just_six_council_bosses/

Don't forget councils also like to waste money on five-a-day co-ordinators, 'enforcement officers' (read: bin police) and diversity managers.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I think a large part of the problem is that we import too much and don't have enough to pay for it. We've been using the financial services to pay for our energy, food and manufactured products, and now that these services have been showed to be of less value than had been anticipated, we don't have enough solid things to pay for what we need - hence why we're in danger of suffering from a stagnant economy and inflation at the same time.

 

[Greenback]

That is very true as well.