Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Eu Grants


Byron

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443

Significantly less taxation receipts get sent abroad never to return. Whether it's £350m or £200m a week that's a lot of money that will (in two and a bit years' time) get spent in this country.

You can't make such a major systemic change like leaving the EU and expect all the other variables to stay the same.

We get far more from our EU contribution than we can from our international development budget which is of the same scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

2/3 of any EU grant comes from the British Government in the form of a reduction of the rebate (which isn't given immediately but rather one year in arrears)

The rebate distorts UK funding negotiations with the EU. Normally, countries and independent agencies within each country bid to receive central EU funds. The UK government is aware that two-thirds of any EU funding will in effect be deducted from the rebate and come out of UK government funds. Thus the UK has only a one-third incentive to apply for EU funds. Other countries, whose contributions into the budget are not affected by funds they receive back, have no incentive to moderate their requests for funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Significantly less taxation receipts get sent abroad never to return. Whether it's £350m or £200m a week that's a lot of money that will (in two and a bit years' time) get spent in this country.

Maybe, but I suspect that the changeover will be an excellent opportunity to cut government spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Maybe, but I suspect that the changeover will be an excellent opportunity to cut government spending.

Which would mean less taxation in this country. I don't see how not sending vast amounts of money abroad with, unlike overseas aid, no say as to how it gets spent is anything other than a very good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Which would mean less taxation in this country. I don't see how not sending vast amounts of money abroad with, unlike overseas aid, no say as to how it gets spent is anything other than a very good thing.

But wouldn't you be the first to say that looking at top line GDP numbers is not the right way to measure things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

But wouldn't you be the first to say that looking at top line GDP numbers is not the right way to measure things?

I would.

But this is a significant amount of cold hard cash for which we get nothing.

It goes on EU bureaucracy and massive capital spending on new entrants. This latter is an EU credo to bring everybody up to the same level because it wants uniformity within the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Which would mean less taxation in this country.

Hold on! In your earlier post you said the end of EU grants would be a good thing because the money would now get spent in this country rather than being spent abroad (although I've seen claims that we were getting more money back than we were putting in). Do you bow think that it'd be better to cut research funding and use the saving to reduce taxes instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Hold on! In your earlier post you said the end of EU grants would be a good thing because the money would now get spent in this country rather than being spent abroad (although I've seen claims that we were getting more money back than we were putting in). Do you bow think that it'd be better to cut research funding and use the saving to reduce taxes instead?

What's wrong with doing both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

I would.

But this is a significant amount of cold hard cash for which we get nothing.

It goes on EU bureaucracy and massive capital spending on new entrants. This latter is an EU credo to bring everybody up to the same level because it wants uniformity within the EU.

Also even when parts of the budget do find their way back what gets funded? Research and development geuninely most beneficial to Uk and UK business or other pet projects of the EU which may or may not directly benefit the Uk outside of the raw cash spent during the research period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

What's wrong with doing both?

[sorry, lost track of the thread for a bit]

Well, I think doing academic research is a good thing (but then I've done it, so I would say that), and cutting funding would be a bad idea. Jobs and expertise would be lost, and it'd probably be harmful to the country in the long run. But the Conservatives don't tend to like expertise very much (cf Mr Gove), and I suspect a reorganisation of research funding would be an excellent opportunity for them to save money and punish the experts at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

[sorry, lost track of the thread for a bit]

Well, I think doing academic research is a good thing (but then I've done it, so I would say that), and cutting funding would be a bad idea. Jobs and expertise would be lost, and it'd probably be harmful to the country in the long run. But the Conservatives don't tend to like expertise very much (cf Mr Gove), and I suspect a reorganisation of research funding would be an excellent opportunity for them to save money and punish the experts at the same time.

I also think it's a good thing, but the EU way of doing faux research (from the posts on here, I'm not an academic) suggests that more targeted funding could be lower.

To take an example which I know, adult social care / vulnerable people:

Ten years ago or so there were lots of small charities running this who relied upon council grants. Now these may have been of variable quality but they were primarily using volunteers so in my estimation there was a big multiplier effect happening between the grant and the service delivered ?10x.

Replace these with a lower number of big money grants to favoured organisations and this multiplier effect collapses as it goes in waste, admin, chief exec salary, and everyone wants paying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415

It's best not to fund academia, as I know everything. :blink:

If academia wasn't funded we would not be able to get the regular news stories to laugh at like "After a five year research programme scientists from the University of Doncaster have concluded that people with bigger feet wear bigger shoes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

If academia wasn't funded we would not be able to get the regular news stories to laugh at like "After a five year research programme scientists from the University of Doncaster have concluded that people with bigger feet wear bigger shoes".

Crikey I nearly did a PhD in that!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418

They all get the subs!

Just that the small farmer gets £10-15k or so - a nice addition to their income, but hardly buys them a footballer's lifestyle (and there are costs as well).

A nice big arable farm could be pulling in £500k+ in payments - and they might go on about how they're employing ten people and how it is a business - but that farmer (who never actually gets in a tractor, toils the land, etc) will still be £££s in just from the payment.

I'd say they should replace the flat rate with a reducing rate - perhaps we'd be better off with 10 farmers (for the above arable example), each of whom gets a decent subsidy, and who works with neighbouring farms (the old estate) to cover larger investment costs (eg, to purchase specialist equipment between them).

Sounds a bit socialist - but it would only be returning to the post WW1 break up of the large country estates.

A hell of a lot of the set-aside subs that small farmers receive are sold of to other farmers/investors/estates ....the amount of arable acreage / subsidies Scottish /shooting/hunting estates hold is incredible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

British workers taxed, money sent to Poland to improve their infrastructure.

British factories then close down and move to Poland, sack the taxed workers, who paid for their own demise.

I still avoid Twinnings Tea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

I also think it's a good thing, but the EU way of doing faux research (from the posts on here, I'm not an academic) suggests that more targeted funding could be lower.

To take an example which I know, adult social care / vulnerable people:

Ten years ago or so there were lots of small charities running this who relied upon council grants. Now these may have been of variable quality but they were primarily using volunteers so in my estimation there was a big multiplier effect happening between the grant and the service delivered ?10x.

Replace these with a lower number of big money grants to favoured organisations and this multiplier effect collapses as it goes in waste, admin, chief exec salary, and everyone wants paying.

Not EU.

I was partially involved with a charity that provided daytime respite for disabled adults. Basically 20+ Downes and brain damaged would do a work day sat in a portakabin, doing art, sticking stuff in books. Gave their parents breathing space and the clients something to do. Win for everyone.

The charity got a grant of about 100k. The aim was to update the cabins to something more modern and better insulated and update the kit.

I was not privy to the following events which saw the money being spent of a lease for a central office. This was a one of grant. So the charity collapsed as the money for the next 10 years was p1ssed on 12 months office rent.

Id guess th1ckassh1t director and bent agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
21
HOLA4422

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information