The odd billion here, the odd billion there, soon your talking real money!

[typerated]

The result of a tea break searching google is below.
Mainly lifted from wikipedia – so of course take the values (which are in pounds) with a touch of salt.

Still, I found the relative values illuminating – feel free to add to the list if so inclined.


1.3 billion NZ defence budget
2.2 billion BAE's profits
3.8 billion Spent when Nimrod Mra4 scrapped
5 billion QE carriers
6 billion UK overseas aid budget
6 billion First 3 Astute submarines
7 billion 1988 estimate for 232 typhoon airframes
10 billion Estimated cost to rebuild Christchurch earthquake damage
13 billion 14 A330 UK tanker
13 billion 132 JSF airframes
20 billion Trident replacement?
20 billion Current budget for 162 typhoons
34 billion UK defence budget
37 billion UK Defence overspend
37 billion MOD estimate of the life cycle cost of Typhoon
43 billion UK interest on national debt
80 billion NZ GDP
113 billion UK social welfare
120 billion UK Health service
186 billion UK social security budget
420 billion US defence budget
900 billion UK National debt
1,721 billion UK GDP

[Grabbers]

Your talking real money?

[Madbob]

Typrated

From your figures NZ defence budget is 1.625% of their GDP.

UK defence budget is 1.975% of our GDP.

UK's INTEREST ONLY on our national debt is 2.498% of our GDP.:eek::eek:

When interest rates (now at an historic low) go up the debt burden will increase significantly. We really are flying in "coffin corner".......:(:(:(

MB

[haltonapp]

Now you begin to realise why we need to trim the defence budget!

[snagged1]

Thank goodness we got rid of th Lunatic labour left who were driving us further down the route of debt... Whilst it is painful now with the cuts etc, one day we will all thank Cameron for sticking to his guns and trying to sort this mess out.

[Airborne Aircrew]

one day we will all thank Cameron for sticking to his guns and trying to sort this mess out.

As has already been said, it's these three items that are crippling our once great country:-

113 billion UK social welfare
120 billion UK Health service
186 billion UK social security budget

419 Billion squids... Annually. Time to cut the benefits! Pared back to proper levels UK Social Welfare could probably be accomplished in 13 Billion, 1 Billion of which goes to drug and alcohol test the recipients. Use of either = no benefits.

Then let's take a look at the Civil Serpents wages, benefits, pensions etc. There's probably a few bob there too. The "pain" has to be shared equally you know...

[NutLoose]

Trimming the UK defence budget isn't going to do much. It's the health and social security/welfare budgets that need to be slashed if much difference is to be made.


Yup, give them benefits for 2 years, after that stop them dead unless they carry out 5 days a week labour employed cleaning streets, litter picking etc etc etc......... failure to carry this out....... stop their benefits period.

Apply a minimum time period of full employement for "overseas" visitors before they can claim benefits, say 2 years full time employement...hence if you turn up.... you get nothing, no housing etc bar meals possibly served at food kitchens, manned by those above..

Anyone arriving from an EU country will be deported back to it..... you are not fleeing persecution coming from France............well, ok, maybe a little. :E

Those that turn up illegally and destroy their documents etc so they cannot get deported, if they cannot provide them, ship them to an uninhabited Island off Scotland ( 10 miles out should stop potential swimmers) and provide them with the basics to make a go of it...... if they then can suddenly find their documents deport them. Australia does it, why can't we, just a slightly colder version.

:ok:

Hope you dont think I am too mean.

Also give Scotland and Wales independance totally....... if they vote No, close the assemblies and merge all 3 back together...... why we are running and paying for 3 "parliaments" and all the civil servants that go with it is beyond me, seems to be the only thing Politicians are averse to cutting.

Put car tax on fuel, cut the tax disc, thus shutting down a whole department and wiping out car tax avoidance in a stroke. if you want a disc, replace it with a car insurance one.

[SRENNAPS]

Nutloose

I agree with everything you have written and well stated:D:D
I have a few more radical (and somewhat extreme ideas) but as an interim you would get my vote:E:E

Those that turn up illegally and destroy their documents etc so they cannot get deported, if they cannot provide them, ship them to an uninhabited Island off Scotland

Garvey Island would do:)

Back to the subject of real money, here is a website that will destroy your lunchtime surfing plans and the will to live if you were one of those that had to produce the figures and graphs:

UK Public Spending Breakdown: Central Government and Local Authorities 1692-2015 - Charts (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown)

[ZH875]

Put car tax on fuel, cut the tax disc, thus shutting down a whole department and wiping out car tax avoidance in a stroke.


Why should I pay road tax on the fuel for my lawn mower?:E

[LBP PC DC]

Have you been reading my mind Nutloose? As a jock I am utterly against our "parliament" as it is just another expensive layer of self serving jobsworths trying to look busy so they can claim their expenses.

Simple answer to the West Lothian question is that MPs only vote on matters relevant to the part of the UK they represent e.g. Scottish matter - Scottish MPs vote, Welsh matter, Welsh MPs vote etc.If it affects the whole country, they all vote together, to quote the Mongoose - simples!

As to the Tax disc idea, it might cost a few jobs but it will save a huge amount of money and those who drive more will pay more (sadly that includes me :().

[NutLoose]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NutLoose http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/445696-odd-billion-here-odd-billion-there-soon-your-talking-real-money.html#post6307937)
Put car tax on fuel, cut the tax disc, thus shutting down a whole department and wiping out car tax avoidance in a stroke.


Why should I pay road tax on the fuel for my lawn mower?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


No problem... refer to


give them benefits for 2 years, after that stop them dead unless they carry out 5 days a week labour employed cleaning streets, litter picking etc etc etc......... failure to carry this out....... stop their benefits period.


We will send one round with a push mower to do the job for you, after all your taxes are paying for him (or her) sitting on his (or her) butt watching TV and drinking beer........ As you are already paying for his (or her) time he (or she) can do something for it.

[Big Tudor]

After reading that lot the MP's £44million annual salary bill (not including expenses, benefits, etc) doesn't sound quite so much. Still not convinced they are value for money though! :hmm:

[Dan Gerous]

give them benefits for 2 years, after that stop them dead unless they carry out 5 days a week labour employed cleaning streets, litter picking etc etc etc......... failure to carry this out....... stop their benefits period.

Nutloose, as one of the great unwashed, I suggest you take your suggestion and shove it up your backside sideways. I don't spend my day sitting around watching TV and drinking beer. The fact is there are very few jobs out there, and cnuts like you taking cheap shots at the majority of unemployed folk struggling to find work are not helpful. If the grass needs cut, litter picked up or the streets cleaned, them employ someone to do it, thus reducing unemployment.

[Willard Whyte]

At a Bn each, near enough, I trust our shiny new tankers will use no fuel, be supersonic in the air and under water, be transparent to all EM radiation, fly forever without needing a crew and last until the end of time.

No? I guess there are several seats reserved on the EADS board for whoever signed the contract then.

[MrBernoulli]

... to quote the Mongoose - simples!You've just insulted all those Meerkats! :)

[green granite]

Read this and weep: (taken from An Englishman's Castle: Jill Duggan - The Transcript (http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/009554.html) based on the recording linked to in - Bishop Hill blog - Rolls Royceminds (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/10/rolls-royce-minds.html) )


Jill Duggan - The Transcript

Don’t know the cost, don’t know if it works | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog



The two basic questions with any purchase. How much does it cost? Will it do the job?

Jill Duggan is from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action. She is the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading. She is in Australia to tell us how good Europe’s emission trading system is and why we should do something similar.

No one, therefore, should better know the answers to the two most basic questions about this huge scheme. The cost? The effect?.

So on MTR yesterday, I asked them. Duggan’s utter inability to answer is a scandal - an indictment of global warming politics today.= (listen here):


AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD: Yes.

AB: Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - who’s not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments - such as the UK government and the German government - would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB: Right. Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB: That’s right. You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me. For that investment. Or for whatever the investment is. What’s your estimation of how much - because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures - what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD: Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C - so that’s increases - you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB: Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion - or whatever you think the figure is - what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature? Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary. What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD: Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions. It’s 500 or 550 million people. On its own it cannot do that. That is absolutely clear.

AB: Have you got a figure in your mind? You don’t know the cost. Do you know the result?

JD: I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB: So if I put a figure to you - I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome - would you quarrel with this assessment: that by 2100 - if you go your way and if you’re successful - the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C? Would you agree with that?

JD: Sorry, can you just pass that by me again? You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB: If just Europe alone - for this massive investment - will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C. Would you quarrel with that?

JD: Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise. Would it?

AB: Ah, no, actually it is, Jill. You see this is what I’m curious about; that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy. You don’t know what it costs. And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD: Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB: Well what’s your modelling? That’s the one that everyone’s quoting. What’s your modelling?

JD: Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits. In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies. In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

Read o

[sisemen]

Australia does it, why can't we, just a slightly colder version.



We don't. It's merely a halfway house to a lifetime of social benefits and a Labor government trying to look as though they're being "tough on illegal immigrants".

And, as they've run out of space on Christmas Island most of the IIs are being held on the mainland until their permanent visas are granted.

[yippy ki yay]

14 A330s for a total of 13 billion???? almost 1 billion per A330? thats messed up!!

[Cows getting bigger]

UK benefit fraud - 3.5 billion

[draken55]

As per www.defencemanagement.com (http://www.defencemanagement.com)

"The whole life cost of the programme is in the order of £12-13bn, which covers everything – MoD costs, crews, aircraft, infrastructure, servicing, even the aviation fuel the tankers are likely to burn – over 27 years, adjusted for inflation. This is a truly all-in contract and the first major defence project with no hidden elements. Over 27 years, this works out at £400m per year for the full FSTA service. This is not privatisation by stealth. RAF pilots will continue to fly the aircraft when in military use and RAF engineering personnel will continue to undertake some maintenance activities on the aircraft"

[glad rag]

Nutloose, Also give Scotland and Wales independance totally....... if they vote No, close the assemblies and merge all 3 back together...... why we are running and paying for 3 "parliaments" and all the civil servants that go with it is beyond me, seems to be the only thing Politicians are averse to cutting.



Couldn't put it better myself except

STUFF THE EU

as well.

[glad rag]

And how much do all these HMRC buildings cost the tax payer to rent then????£££????

[NutLoose]

Quote:
give them benefits for 2 years, after that stop them dead unless they carry out 5 days a week labour employed cleaning streets, litter picking etc etc etc......... failure to carry this out....... stop their benefits period.
Nutloose, as one of the great unwashed, I suggest you take your suggestion and shove it up your backside sideways. I don't spend my day sitting around watching TV and drinking beer. The fact is there are very few jobs out there, and cnuts like you taking cheap shots at the majority of unemployed folk struggling to find work are not helpful. If the grass needs cut, litter picked up or the streets cleaned, them employ someone to do it, thus reducing unemployment.

Sorry to hear that Dan but it does work, help people to come off benefits and into work with time limits on claiming, The US did just that
see
USATODAY.com - How welfare reform changed America (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-17-welfare-reform-cover_x.htm)

I never suggested you do sit around all day sitting drinking beer, but some do. my neighbour for one, had the nerve to ask me if i could walk around quietly in the morning as I occasionally woke them up when I was getting ready for work (they could hear my shoes on the wooden floors through the party wall)......... Once told me they would love to work but prefer sitting in the sun drinking!

perhaps if you pm me what you do I could help search for you and who knows we might get lucky :)

[Dan Gerous]

Nutloose, I was in an bad mood yesterday and having spent the morning trawling round job sites looking for work, your comment just got my back up. I usually just laugh those type of comments off with a, "I'll just head home in the Beamer and watch the 52 inch plasma with a beer or six", but I seem to have had a sense of humour failure yesterday. I know that there are, and always will be, an element who will screw the system, but we are not all at it.

I read the link you provided. It didn't change my opinion on work for welfare. I think we'll just have to disagree on that point.

Danny

[Bushranger 71]

One billion dollars is a vast amount of money, as illustrated by this little gimmick converting dollars to seconds:

$1million in seconds = 11.57 DAYS
$1billion in seconds = 31.71 YEARS
$1trillion in seconds = 317 CENTURIES

Projecting defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP is just smoke and mirrors stuff as reality is all costs have to be borne from government revenue.

In Australia, both major political parties have foolishly committed to unaffordable annual increases in defence expenditure of 3 percent to 2018 and then 2.2 percent to 2030, aiming toward development of a mythical Force 2030 structure which is a feast for the major arms conglomerates.

At FY2008, Australian annual defence expenditure was around $22.4billion representing 7.6 percent of government revenue. For the current financial year it will approximate $27billion or maybe northwards of 9 percent of government revenue. If government revenue stagnates, the percentage spent on defence will continue to increase, unless taxation heads upwards to increase government income.

This scenario has evolved because Australia primarily has a defence industry support policy in lieu of continuously maintaining adequate and credible military preparedness through progressive optimisation of proven in-service assets (where cost-effective). A whole range of questionable projects are pouring billions into largely foreign-parented defence industries whereas proven assets (like Iroquois, Blackhawk, Seahawk, Sea King helicopters) that could have been run through manufacturer enhancement programs, are being discarded.

It seems the unit costs of MRH90, MH-60R, NFH90 are somewhere between about 35 and 70 million US/Australian dollars, which is absurd considering most military helicopter roles are pretty basic functions. The latest trick of Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky is an offer to upgrade relatively low airframe time Blackhawks and Seahawks for sale to other nations as a bribe to have the MH-60R selected for a so-called naval combat helicopter at an outrageous overall project cost mooted at up to $3.5billion for just 24 aircraft.

Australia's military capacity is being neutered by shedding proven capabilities while indulging in unrealistic compounding increases in defence expenditure on numerous dubious merit acquisition projects. This situation has devolved from deficient political and military leadership and the overriding influence of the major arms conglomerates on military capabilities planning.

Somewhere downstream, there will have to be an economic reality check, perhaps involving a rationalisation of military structures and roles.