Your taxes are saving lives. Do you agree?

This link is to the BBC report regarding David Cameron pledging £814m to help vaccinate children around the world against preventable diseases like pneumonia.

It now makes the UK the world's largest funder of vaccines.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged £814m to help vaccinate children around the world against preventable diseases like pneumonia.

 

He made the announcement at a summit in London where countries are being asked to give an extra £2.3bn ($3.7bn) by 2015 for child vaccines.

 

The Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation says this could help save four million lives in four years.

 

The UK has already committed more, £2bn over 30 years, than any other nation.

 

The extra £814m ($1.3bn) comes on top of the UK's existing commitment of £680m between 2011 and 2015.

 

Hosting the conference alongside Mr Cameron, Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates said he would be giving $1bn to help the campaign.

 

It is expected that by the end of the summit donations should exceed the £2.3bn target.

Does it make you proud that we're leading the way in saving the lives of others or should charity begin at home?

Blimey. More people seem to agree than don't. I would like people to explain why they like the pledge.

I mistakenly assumed that the question in the poll was the same as the question in the thread title.

Our taxes are saving lives. Nobody can argue with that. The poll, on the other hand, asks whether they should be.

I mistakenly assumed that the question in the poll was the same as the question in the thread title.

 

Our taxes are saving lives. Nobody can argue with that. The poll, on the other hand, asks whether they should be.

It was difficult wording the poll question.

I've heard lots of arguments both for and against this morning. The main argument against has been that it will affect the 1st world poor more than any other group. This was argued because the poor pay out more of a percentage of their income.

All arguments for were simply that we are saving lives, it will help population control and ultimately it will lead to a reduction of funding in future.

Well we're not all in it together, but a small amount of money can do a great deal more in third world countries than it can in Britain.

Providing that there is transparency so that aid reaches those who need it, I think it's admirable that we have ringfenced money for aid.

I've heard lots of arguments both for and against this morning. The main argument against has been that it will affect the 1st world poor more than any other group. This was argued because the poor pay out more of a percentage of their income.

That's an argument for revamping the taxation system; it says nothing about what our tax money should be spent on.

Its like all this Fairtrade rubbish. It would be nice if more was done for our own farmers - dairy especially.

In poor taste, especially in the days following the documentary 'Poor Kids' - Most kids where I grew up lived like those kids, but that was in the 1980's, and you'd have thought the world would have moved on a fair bit since... Sort out home issues first, before you start being the all caring benevolent hand across the world... Still, proves we're out of recession, and they can stop banging on about us having no cash now can't they? Look forward to the cuts ceasing any day now:rolleyes:

The alternate view may be that by saving the lives overseas we are making the situation worse. I assume the population in the sub continent is going up, when they cannot feed the population as it is now. If 2+2=4 then by feeding them and giving them jabs we are helping increase the numbers even more, making the situation worse in years to come. Yes/no.

Regards

Angel.

As someone said on this forum, whilst charity begins at home it doesn't end there.