You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/my-tax-should-be-for-peace-mark-rylance?CMP=share_btn_tw ]Turns out there's a new law being discussed in parliament tomorrow, which would allow you to opt out of your taxes going on military spending
[/url]
On average, I am told we each pay £500 a year in tax towards the £35bn budget for war and preparations for war. Not to mention an additional estimated £420m in annual subsidy to promote the British arms trade and an additional indirect subsidy of £570m through government funding of weapons development costs.
Say you and your partner are each contributing £500 a year to weapons of mass destruction, that would mean since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'd spent a not inconsiderable £14,000 on wreaking havoc and misery.
If you're a little older and were paying taxes back when the UK (& US) government(s) assisted Saddam's chemical weapons programme, you'd be looking at almost £30,000 of your hard earned contributing to the situation that led to the creation of ISIS and ultimately, yesterday's attack.
Probably a bit late to contact your MP, but certainly worth pursuing, just a shame it wasn't publicized a bit sooner.
[url= http://www.conscienceonline.org.uk/ ]Taxes for Peace Not War[/url]
You know what? I'd like to contribute NOTHING to the imperial war machine, however, I'd like the data to be really accurate and "On average, I am told we each pay £500 a year in tax towards the £35bn budget for war and preparations for war. " isn't good enough.
On average, I am told we each pay £500 a year in tax towards the £35bn budget for war and preparations for war.
'Budget for war....preparations for war'....... whoever phrased it that way can do one.
I spent a few bob on war against ants last year.
you snooze you looze jonnyboi
I'm still fighting a war against 10 speed and tapered steerers.
So let's find that data... must be available somewhere in this day and age
Do we still pay for the defence and aid/relief/emergency response stuff if we opt out of paying for the war bit?
Average as in average tax paying family? You can actually see the spending breakdown on defence and apply that to your tax spend, though defence has other benefits such as peace keeping, foreign aid work, rescues. Add in when in natural disaster the military are used to help people and other forgetting the employment it generates both in service personnel and the supply chain.
Oh and from a UK perspective I'd like to have opted out of any of my taxes being spent on the west Midlands and Sunderland, along with on homeopathy.
I'd opt out of foreign aid.
I'm fighting a mental war.
If I stop contributing, will I win or loose ?
[URL= http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/face-slap.gi f" target="_blank">http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/face-slap.gi f"/> [/IMG][/URL]
wreaking havoc and misery.
You say havoc and misery I like to think of it as giving freedom and democracy to those that don't deserve it.
Potatoes tomatoes innit (-:
If the money goes on sharks with frickin lasers then I'm happy to pay in 😀
It's tricky to quantify:
aid/relief/emergency response stuff
Is that on a purely domestic level, or in overseas conflicts which in many instances have come about as a result of government subsidized arms sales?
or in overseas conflicts which in many instances have come about as a result of government subsidized arms sales?
Take a look on se Asia and the weather, tsunami effects down there. Places like hati. Lots goes on around the world that can be helped by a dedicated defense force.
If the money goes on sharks with frickin lasers then I'm happy to pay in
That's not a bad shout, I reckon inflatable sumo costumes and rock paper scissors would be a good way to settle most disputes, failing that get full aggro with the paintball.
Terminator drones and skynet is probably taking it a bit far though...
^Haha was just about to say something similar, if you opt out of the war chest, what's to stop the government using general taxation propping up companies who invest or directly arm other countries to create a war that 'needs' to be fought? Same thing is it not?
Seems like an unessesary idea that adds costs and complexity, if we don't like what the government is doing we vote them out in a general election, that's at least how it's supposed to work...
Last thing we need is more taxation complexity.
dedicated defense force.
But situations like that could just as easily be dealt with by an army of firemen, medics, or divers.
The word 'defence' is often used well out of context.
Bit like 1984 really 'War is Peace'
Taxation complexity vs increasing global instability and more terrorist attacks...
Hmm, tricky choice
Now if I could increase my tax free pay directly by opting out, so the government gets nothing, you've got my attention, lol!
The word 'defence' is often used well out of context.
As is the word "war", but you knew that.
[img] 
[/img]
I'd sooner not spend on criminal justice but people commit crimes. I'd sooner not spend on welfare to those of working age, but there aren't enough jobs and some people are lazy.
Interesting how low the EU spending is though......honestly thought it was more than that.
Every nation has a military, hence we need one too. As a %age of GDP (the only relevant metric really), we spend less than Singapore, Colombia, Algeria, Poland, France and a good few others.
Genuinely interested JHJ in what do you think would have happened in places like Sierra Leone without military intervention from the UN and more importantly the British and how would they have been resolved?
Can I opt out of subsidising heart bypasses for fat ****s
Military expenditure should be as is. Don't like it, vote with your feet.
Having various tax rules just allows plausible personal deniability and war can be funded indirectly through general taxation anyway.
yeah could be a good excuse/cover for increasing defence spending actually....
I'd sooner not spend on welfare to those of working age, but there aren't enough jobs and some people are lazy.
Alternatively some employers are not paying a wage commensurate with a moderate standard of living in certain parts of the country.
A friend of mine did a spell in prison for refusing to pay the part of his taxes spent on the military. He was a baker and offered to pay it in bread rolls.
Here come the trolls.
How was it that you blocked individuals?
Tom_W1987 - Member
Can I opt out of subsidising heart bypasses for fat ****
Only if I can opt out of subsidising hospital treatment for mountain bikers and skiers with broken legs and collar bones. 😉
In answer to the original question, very little, but a shedload for relative peace.
I have relatives piece ..
Does that count ?
Genuinely interested JHJ in what do you think would have happened in places like Sierra Leone without military intervention from the UN and more importantly the British and how would they have been resolved?
Hmm... [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/90526.stm ]perhaps if private military contractors linked to the UK intelligence services hadn't covertly supplied the weapons which led to escalation of conflict in the 1st place[/url] things wouldn't have become nearly so bloody:
A British firm, Sandline International, was hired last July by allies of ousted President Tejan Kabbah to provide "logistical support" - namely the supply of arms and a helicopter - for a counter-coup.The mercenary company, based in London and headed by the former Guards officer Tim Spicer, is accused of breaching a UN resolution by arranging for a shipment of 35 tons of Bulgarian-made AK-47 rifles to Sierra Leone.
A key part of Sandline's defence is that it kept Foreign Office officials and Whitehall defence intelligence staff fully informed of the operation.
It's worth bearing in mind that Tim Spicer mentioned in that article was key in setting up Aegis Defence Services, which profited immensely from Iraq and Afghanistan and is chaired by Prince Charles' best mate, Nicholas Soames
If you want deeper insight into Sierra Leone and the arms industry in general, read this book:
Alternatively some employers are not paying a wage commensurate with a moderate standard of living in certain parts of the country.
That too. And those who choose to work part time. And the poor sods on zero hour contracts.
Point is we all have to pay for stuff we don't want to but is necessary, and defence is necessary. In the last 20 odd years defence spending has gone up in the same sort of scale that other public spending has, and we have asked an awful lot of them (and by we, I mean all of those who have voted for labour or conservative in that time)
Hmm... perhaps if private military contractors linked to the UK intelligence services hadn't covertly supplied the weapons which led to escalation of conflict in the 1st place things wouldn't have become nearly so bloody:
I would suggest that you read up on that particular conflict, and in particular (hague indicted for war crimes) Koroma, and his relationship with Charles taylor. Small wonder the UK didn't want him in place. Anyway it didn't work and we ended up going. What fun that was.....
£500 is probably less than I end up giving to billionaires like Besos and Gates each year.
Is that a voluntary contribution, or an enforced one?
I pay my taxes, I understand that some of that goes towards the armed forces.
I don't have a problem with that. They generally do a good job but some of the things they are involved in, I don't agree with.
I'd rather have an army than not though.
Appreciate it's tricky... I've been mates with plenty of squaddies over the years and they're all good folks, but it's not really about personality, or ensuring jobs for the boys, or protecting our little island against anyone crazy enough to invade it for whatever reason (why would anyone invade anyway?) it's more about the damaging impact of weapons of mass destruction, which our taxes just happen to pay for.
The sad fact is, if Her Majesty's government hadn't played a significant role in arming Saddam (via a subsidized industry) in the 1st place there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq and there wouldn't have been ISIS and the people that died yesterday, wouldn't have died.
Allowing taxpayers to pick and choose what taxes they pay wont end well.
Or is it more of "oh we won't spend YOUR taxes on Guns, we'll only spend yours on Fluffy Kittens and Wurhers Original for Old Ladies - but you still have to pay the same". Then go right ahead, if it lets people sleep better at night.
I'd like to opt out of paying for new prison building, the war on drugs and the 3rd Heathrow Runway please.
If there wasn't ISIS, we'd still have al quaeda!
People will always play in this game of thrones, which is simply based around tilting the odds in their favour. Who might have been in place if not Saddam? Look at Iran, Syria etc. The mistake was going in the first place, it didn't need doing and in any case, radical islamic terrorism predates western involvement in Iraq by some period. I hope that I am very wrong here, but there seems to be inconsolable differences between free western and hard-line religious cultures. Personally, I can't see an end to it.
But we wouldn't have an Al-Qaeda if MI6 (along wth the CIA and many others) hadn't armed the Mujahadeen via a UK trained Saudi Prince:
Strange the same resources have never been dedicated to curbing the Saudi funded and distributed wahhabist ideology that is at the heart of Islamic Extremism
[img] 
[/img]
Overall (using data and stuff)...it's never been more peaceful, more people die because they've eaten too much food, than die because of war. This has almost never happened before. It's never been safer than it is now.
Then why all the hype and closing of borders?
Mass media and the fact that borders have actually become a thing.
Not too long ago it was much easier to be an illegal, borders used to be much more porous.
Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine
search
Chat ForumHow much does your household spend on war each year?
45 posts & 24 voices | Started 2 hours ago by jivehoneyjive | Latest reply from Tom_W1987
Add this topic to your favorites (?)
Tags:No tags yet.
Pages:
« Previous
1
2
mos - Member
£500 is probably less than I end up giving to billionaires like Besos and Gates each year.POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
jivehoneyjive - Member
Is that a voluntary contribution, or an enforced one?POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
ads678 - Member
I pay my taxes, I understand that some of that goes towards the armed forces.
I don't have a problem with that. They generally do a good job but some of the things they are involved in, I don't agree with.
I'd rather have an army than not though.POSTED 41 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
jivehoneyjive - Member
Appreciate it's tricky... I've been mates with plenty of squaddies over the years and they're all good folks, but it's not really about personality, or ensuring jobs for the boys, or protecting our little island against anyone crazy enough to invade it for whatever reason (why would anyone invade anyway?) it's more about the damaging impact of weapons of mass destruction, which our taxes just happen to pay for.The sad fact is, if Her Majesty's government hadn't played a significant role in arming Saddam (via a subsidized industry) in the 1st place there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq and there wouldn't have been ISIS and the people that died yesterday, wouldn't have died.
POSTED 28 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
P-Jay - Member
Allowing taxpayers to pick and choose what taxes they pay wont end well.Or is it more of "oh we won't spend YOUR taxes on Guns, we'll only spend yours on Fluffy Kittens and Wurhers Original for Old Ladies - but you still have to pay the same". Then go right ahead, if it lets people sleep better at night.
I'd like to opt out of paying for new prison building, the war on drugs and the 3rd Heathrow Runway please.
POSTED 22 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
wrecker - Member
If there wasn't ISIS, we'd still have al quaeda!
People will always play in this game of thrones, which is simply based around tilting the odds in their favour. Who might have been in place if not Saddam? Look at Iran, Syria etc. The mistake was going in the first place, it didn't need doing and in any case, radical islamic terrorism predates western involvement in Iraq by some period. I hope that I am very wrong here, but there seems to be inconsolable differences between free western and hard-line religious cultures. Personally, I can't see an end to it.
Ending it is not the goal, keeping the region destabilised is the goal.
But we wouldn't have an Al-Qaeda if MI6 (along wth the CIA and many others) hadn't armed the Mujahadeen via a UK trained Saudi Prince:
Not strictly true. The muj and AQ were not the same. In afg, the locals called AQ "the foreigners". The muj were more warlords, with some notable exceptions (also mostly foreign to afg) who were there for a spot of good old jihad more than defending their homeland. It's fair to say these people were probably inclined towards violence before the russians turned up.
Strange the same resources have never been dedicated to curbing the Saudi funded and distributed wahhabist ideology that is at the heart of Islamic Extremism
Is it strange? I'd say that (even if it is distasteful in the extreme) it makes sense not to piss off your biggest mates in the whole area, who quite coincidentally are also a source of revenue.
Ending it is not the goal, keeping the region destabilised is the goal.
oookaaaayyy
How long before it's illegal for UK citizens to work in (or perhaps even visit) countries that we previously had full access to, because of scaremongering built up via a narrative involving immigration and refugees fleeing wars that were paid for by our taxes?
F*** knows. We have not paid for any wars currently occurring. There may have been a level of support, but it is support. The rebels are not on HMG's payroll.
Support ain't free though...
Neither is training, arming etc, or the ministerial involvement in arms being sold to Saudi to use in Yemen
jivehoneyjive - Member
How long before it's illegal for UK citizens to work in (or perhaps even visit) countries that we previously had full access to, because of [b]scaremongering[/b] built up via a narrative involving immigration and refugees fleeing wars that were paid for by our taxes?
{Irony alarm going full tilt}
You can't train and/or arm a scarecrow though!
The west aren't doing the heavy lifting.
I do agree that it's shit, don't get me wrong.
I'm not scaremongering... there was a terrorist attack yesterday, that was a result of ideologies that are on the increase due to radicalization fueled by taxpayer funded conflict.
And shortly after Katie Hopkins bought up refugees fleeing war in the Mediterranean, much of the media jumped on it in the run up to the EU referendum
due to radicalization fueled by taxpayer funded conflict.
In part. There's a bit (lot) more to it than that IMHO.
[img] 
[/img]
oookaaaayyy
Can you honestly not see that many countries have a financial interest in keeping the middle east unstable?
In part. There's a bit (lot) more to it than that IMHO.
No doubt, like the wahhabist faith, spread without challenge by allies Saudi Arabia (just don't mention 9/11)
jivehoneyjive - Member
I'm not scaremongering... there was a terrorist attack yesterday, that was a result of ideologies that are on the increase due to radicalization fueled by taxpayer funded conflict.And shortly after Katie Hopkins bought up refugees fleeing war in the Mediterranean, much of the media jumped on it in the run up to the EU referendum
Islamic fundamentalism has steadily grown since the 50's. The internet and social media has aided their ability to organise and improved communication, so rather than relying on the printed word, they can collectively share ideas and indoctrinate followers.
Yes, you can continue to blame western intervention as justification for this, just like owning nice stuff is the reason for getting burgled. It's always a good idea to continue to make excuses for others abhorrent behaviour...
But since western intervention has so obvious an impact on global events, just why is it that the (well funded by the taxpayer) intelligence services don't intervene in the root causes that bring about such a degree of column filling horror?
You cannot defeat and ideology that has no real roots and no real viable aim apart from jihad. Fighting this is like trying to wrestle a well oiled midget.
No real roots?
estimates "Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools".More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs, Birt says, "can be five to 10 times that of any other British-based sectarian publication, aggressively targeted for a global English-speaking audience." This has had the effect of forcing non-Wahhabi publishers across the Muslim world to close. It has put out of business smaller bookshops catering for a more mainstream Muslim market.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html
Dude, random links or quotes on the internet, whatever. You have an axe to grind with the Saudis, thats clear. So unless you're advocating an all out war with them, I don't see the point you're constantly trying to make.
You're being silly for silly's sake...
Here's a random quote I found on the internet:
It's always a good idea to continue to make excuses for others abhorrent behaviour...
and another:
Dude,
whatever
Not in the slightest. All you do is post links and others opinion. What is yours? War with Saudi Arabia to hole them account for it? C'mon, tell us, put your cards on the table.
Of course not war... accountability, sanctions, halting arms trade and military support for their campaign in Yemen etc...
But being as Her Majesty's goverment is so tied up with them by the Al Yamamah arms deal, the main thing to do for the time being is raise awareness 😉
Tick tock old chap...
Everyone is aware, and any sanctions or accountability put in place will be labelled as an attack on Islam and Muslims. So plan B?
Everyone is aware
Cool, tell me more about Al Yamamah...
What, BAE and it's dodgy deals for oil?
Which have been investigated and just gone away after 'Intervention'?
Good, keep going...
I can't be arsed. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but it still doesn't solve the issue does it? Bring Saudi to heal and all those complicit; you honestly think it's going to stop the sociopaths and their minions perpetrating attacks against those they deem infidels?
I'm not advocating that you forgot that the Saudis aren't clean, they're dirtier than Jimmy Saville at an under-age gang-bang, but these are, like it or not separate issues. The horse has bolted and no amount of kicking the stablehand in the goolies is going to get that bastard back in the pen.
More than that they have flooded the Islamic book market with cheap well-produced Wahhabi literature whose print runs,
As an answer to what, d'you think? Many people think it was a response to this
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure ]Grand Mosque Seizure [/url]
read the the section on aftermath and policies, particularly