To think we need to prioritise defence/Ukraine spending?

[Wildflowers99]

I’ll admit I had no idea how depleted our military has become until a few weeks ago. I was absolutely staggered to read we now spend more on PIP and DLA than our entire military.

I feel like slowly all of our public spending has been funnelled into health, benefits and social care, leaving everything else in a very poor state. Any time anyone has suggested spending money on anything apart from ‘freezing pensioners, the homeless or disabled’ they get shouted down (I am disabled btw, so I do understand the need).

AIBU to think we need to urgently address our spending priorities and as a nation wake up to the fact we’ve been overspending on the above for too long?

No, you seem to think you can just stop money and benefit claimants will suddenly find a job.. or they should be forced into some bizarre 3 month scheme learning hospitality or care

It doesn’t sound remotely bizarre to those of us who work.

@Wildflowers99
@XenoBitch

"What’s going to happen to our core budget when benefit spending reaches 100 billion? That’s a more pressing question."

"That will be up to the government to sort out, and not us civilians."

Which reminds me of the quote from Alexander Tytler in the late 1700s:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy"

As I see OP's opening question it comes down to:

Does defence spending need to increase? Yes or No

If yes then there are three options to fund it:

1. increase taxes - however as Rachel Reeves discovered this will have a negative impact on economic growth
2. increase debt - as Liz Truss discovered this will have a negative impact on interest rates and then economic growth.
3. cut spending on other areas - this will have a negative impact politically.

There are no easy options here but without economic growth we will simply continue with slow managed economic decline that will impact all of government spending.

I agree but economic growth cannot happen while our pool of taxpayers dwindle and more and more people drop out of the workplace or claim benefits for nebulous conditions. Any growth would be instantly wiped out.

It's laughable that the OP says she earns £28k a year and has a child in nursery, but happily judges others for costing the state money. What a hypocrite.

If you're a net contributor OP I'm a monkey's uncle. Maybe you should take some of that tough love and use it on yourself. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that?

So because low earners aren’t net contributors they shouldn’t bother working at all? Do you want people to take your bins, cut your hair, deliver parcels? They may as well all be on benefits instead?

No I just think it's embarrassing to watch you lecture other people on taking from the pot when you don't even contribute to it, and happily take from it yourself.

I don't completely disagree with your original premise, we have a spiralling social services budget and we probably need to do something about that. But blaming one group and shoving all the cuts on to their shoulders isn't the answer.

I've had mental health issues, probably fairly minor compared to a lot of people. I was very lucky to have a supportive employer, good friends, and private insurance that enabled me to stay in work and not be thrown into the arms of the state (and judgement by the likes of you).

It was worse than any physical health problem I've ever had- the blame, the self-doubt, the feeling of complete inadequacy. At least when the problem has been physical it's felt like something that has happened to me, not something i might have caused myself (I didn't, our brains are just bags of chemicals that can go off kilter).

Watching the supercilious way you've spoken to people on this thread, blaming them for all our budgetary ills has really got on my wick.

The fact that it's coming from someone who happily takes in other areas is very...convenient for you, isn't it? I'm willing to bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was something you relied on that was taken away.

What’s embarrassing is the absolute reaching you are doing to try to undermine an uncomfortable point.

There is a world of difference between a working person on NMW and somebody who does not work at all. Firstly, person 1 is providing a service to the public. Secondly, they’re the employee of a person who earns more and likely is a net contributor - no staff, no higher wages for their managers, no net contributors. Thirdly, giving £4 and receiving £6 is much better than giving £0 and receiving £6.

I don't completely disagree with your original premise, we have a spiralling social services budget and we probably need to do something about that

We certainly do not have a spiralling social services budget. Hence all the children sadly neglected or even killed over the last few years.

Laughable nonsense. But I've clearly touched a nerve, which I'm glad about.

Not at all, I’m happy to keep discussing it if you wish.

Thanks for this... I needed to read it. This thread has quite honestly just made me feel like a huge burden. Like the deficits in the budget/defence spending/whatever are my fault.

But with the greatest of respect you are on all the benefit threads, fighting for your right not to ever go back to work again. People only comment on personal circumstances if you share them. Nobody is forcing you to make disclosures about your circumstances. This is purely an economic issue, not an emotive one, until somebody comes up with an idea for us to rustle up an extra £10 billion a year each and every year, any debate over the rights and wrongs is redundant.

ODFOD... I do not "fight for my right to never work again". I would love to be able to work. I would love better not to be plagued by my shitty MH.
I am on benefits thread because shock horror, I am on benefits and the proposed cuts that you are so excited about will affect me, and I am terrified.
I am vocal about it here because it is anonymous.
I literally just replied to a post on here and you felt the need to jump on me again. There was no need... no need at all.

This thread isnt even about benefits, its supposed to be about our woeful defence spending but has been severely sidetracked.

Read your own OP

I feel like slowly all of our public spending has been funnelled into health, benefits and social care, leaving everything else in a very poor state

And the very first post on your thread was someone recognising you from others about you having an issue with people on benefits.

Edit - sorry, the second post. But you clearly have form for thinking no one should be on benefits for MH reasons.

I am sure that labour will be looking to save money wherever they can. We can argue until the cows come home, just let them get on with it. That's their job.

How Auto Sales Giant Motability Cornered Britain's Car Market - Bloomberg
7 days agoMotability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming

This was on Bloomberg.com a week ago.
So taxpayers are providing all these nice new cars ……….

Surely the government just accepts more people re immigration to grow the economy?

@Terrribletwos

"Surely the government just accepts more people re immigration to grow the economy?"

Except it's a myth that increasing the population grows the economy. What is important is GDP per capita in real terms and not overall GDP. If you grow the economy by 3% but the population grows by 6 % then everyone is worse off. UK politicians always talk about growth in overall GDP and never about GDP per capita in real terms.

Shockingly and by way of example if the UK were to become the 51st state of America then it would be the poorest state (poorer than Mississippi).

Shockingly and by way of example if the UK were to become the 51st state of America then it would be the poorest state (poorer than Mississippi).

But we’d be poor with a half-baked health service and some poor social support which hpoor Mississippians prob don’t have 😂

@Slimbear

"But we’d be poor with a half-baked health service and some poor social support which hpoor Mississippians prob don’t have 😂"

So basically then we are becoming Cuba or East Germany.

Now I'm sure many on the left in the UK would be perfectly happy with that outcome but I don't think the majority would be.

Public-private partnerships are often touted as more "efficient" because the private sector is seen as always superior. The problem is they often seem to dissolve into the private company making massive profits out of being a monopoly provider, and the public sector being too slow moving/bureaocratic to fix the issue. When you put together one body charged with spending public money and another body charged with making as much profit as possible it tends to lead to issues. Either it is substandard (because lowest bidder is always favoured)often costing more money to be spent down the line filling the gaps or you get one company cornering the market and making loads.

In the motability case there is no way it could be brought in house I would imagine (I don't think government made cars are viable) but you also see this pattern repeated in the NHS where more and more is outsourced to private providers for "efficiency" or where people (especially on the right) push for "patient choice" which means handing out money to spend rather than in-house care.

Statistics like the motability one should show the drawbacks in these schemes but nope, onward we plunge down the path of more privitisation.