Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Well Mitt Romney doesn't decide British economic policy regardless. I still never understood why you claim to have been disappointed in Obama and switched to Romney, your politics are very solidly Republican.
Anyway, you're part of the few that puts more than you put in. Although you don't get nothing. The society you live in benefits from an healthy and educated workforce, just because you don't use it doesn't mean the doctors you pay didn't or the teachers that education your grandchildren didn't either. There are all sorts of ways that society as a whole helps you.
I am not going to take it personally when you moan about welfare. I don't receive it at the moment, nor would I feel 'personally offended' if I did.
As for Scotland they, as a whole, do not cost you money. They are contributing more to the union than they take for the moment.
|
Stupidly I thought Obama was different & was the best man on offer at the time - So I voted for him. I am not a registered Republican. & my vote swings a lot. I never claimed that I do not benefit from what I contribute to in society however I do moan about the number of persons that feel that I should look after them,because they are too lazy to look after them self's.
As I understand it Scotland "spends" more money than the taxes raise in it. So as I see it that is a net cost.
The gulf in state spending between Scotland and England has hit a record £1,600 per head.
Government spending in Scotland averaged £10,212 per person last year – £1,624 per head more than in England.
The staggering figures, buried in Treasury documents, reveal the gap increased by more than 15 per cent in only a year.
Under the arrangements, the Scots receive 10 per cent of the money handed out by Whitehall, despite having little more than eight per cent of the population.