The decision by the government to cut the overseas aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income to save £4bn annually is truly shocking, particularly as the underdevelopment and poverty in many parts of Africa and Asia are partly the legacy of colonialism (Outrage aimed at No 10 as MPs back £4bn cut to foreign aid budget, 13 July). Let’s get the figures in perspective. Borrowing £4bn (instead of cutting aid) would increase the current UK national debt of approximately £2tn by just 0.2%. The damage to the public finances would be negligible. At an interest rate of 1%, the cost of borrowing would be approximately £40m annually to save an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 lives. The cost per person saved would therefore be between £200 and £400 – a trivial sum to put on the value of a life. The interest cost to the UK adult population would be less than £1 per head per annum. If the British people knew the facts, the meanness and pettiness of the government would appal them. Tony Thirlwall Emeritus professor of applied economics, University of Kent • Steve Baker MP was front-page news in Wednesday’s Guardian print edition for his warning to Conservative colleagues that their culture war against taking the knee might be misunderstood as opposition to the principle that Black lives matter (Tory MP says party must change attitude towards taking the knee, 13 July). He was also one of the 332 Tory MPs (and one independent) who voted in support of the cut to foreign aid on Tuesday, also reported on your front page. All of these MPs voted to condemn thousands of actual Black lives for the sake of 0.2% of gross national income, and as such appear to have made their position, and that of their party, abundantly clear. Mat Kinton Nottingham • The government’s promise that aid spending will return to 0.7% of gross national income “when the fiscal situation allows” will have a familiar ring to those with a longstanding involvement in development. It is exactly the same cliche that I had to trot out time and again during the last Conservative administration. Even the then minister for overseas development, Lynda Chalker, described to me by her successor, Clare Short, as “a good woman hampered by the Treasury and Foreign Office”, seemed embarrassed when she had to use it. It was to no one’s surprise that the financial situation never did allow. It dribbled down from 0.51% in 1979 to 0.26% in 1997. Perhaps we should be grateful that it’s only going down to 0.5%. Ron Fosker Chief press officer, Overseas Development Administration/Department for International Development 1989-98 • Depressed as I was by the Commons vote on overseas aid, I was heartened by the Labour MP Sarah Champion on Newsnight asserting that this was a political decision – not an economic one, as the Tories are trumpeting. She said this because the Tories have no qualms about expanding the military budget by a huge £24bn, including an increase in the number of Trident nuclear warheads. Rae Street Littleborough, Greater Manchester • The slashing of our international aid budget will damage not only our reputation around the world and upset many UK citizens over the moral state of our current government, but may easily come back to bite our people too. In Vaxxers, the excellent book by Prof Sarah Gilbert and Dr Catherine Green, the authors note that an early tranche of money to the Oxford research team came from the international aid budget via Vax Hub so that research into vaccines for diseases that could cause havoc around the planet could be developed. It came from monies set aside to invest in the development of such vaccines in other countries. We live collectively on this planet and need to act accordingly. Ron Rooney Peterlee, County Durham • On Wednesday, during my weekly launderette visit, I popped into Costa to buy a hot chocolate medio. £2.70. Delicious. This, I gather, is about the weekly cost to me of raising income tax by 1p in the pound. I also gather this increase would raise the nation’s income by about £4bn – the amount that has been cut from our overseas aid budget. I should like to thank Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak for cutting overseas aid and not, as was suggested, raising taxes instead. I can now continue to afford my hot chocolate. The next time I enjoy one, I shall also thank the possibly millions of children who are facing starvation, lacking education and succumbing to diseases that may maim or blind for their support in allowing my minor indulgence. Robbie King Alsager, Cheshire • Perhaps those countries that are going to have their aid from the UK reduced should give some thought to appointing a cabinet minister’s friend as president in order to restore the flow of funds? Prof Trevor Curnow Lancaster • It was heartwarming to read that Bill Gates and other multibillionaires are to step in to make good the broken promises of the UK government (Philanthropists to fund life-saving projects threatened by UK aid cuts, 12 July), but by doing so, aren’t they just enabling the Conservative party to break its manifesto promise? Philanthropy is a very fine thing – Peabody, Carnegie, Passmore Edwards and the rest, without whom we would have so much less affordable housing and freely accessible culture – but that was in the days when there was no tax system worthy of the name. They stepped in where the state as yet had no role. Now, to let the government of one of the richest countries in the world off the hook for its own selfish purposes is simply self-defeating. Judith Martin Winchester, Hampshire • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.