cksantos85
-
Posts
100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by cksantos85
-
-
9 hours ago, restlessnomad said:
the fundamental question is, why we need to pay every brit same amount of money?
There is no evidence of 50% admin cost in the UK, who what are we trying to fix exactly? Its like me losing my purse in a dark area and searching it near a street light simply because its easy to see things.
I dont have admin cost stats(which am sure is minuscule compare to its budget), but DWP lost £4.1 billion to fraud and error last year. Although it sounds like big money, its only 2.2% of its total budget.(£183.5 billion)
As a tax payer I wont be happy if you take money from me only to give back next year, its dumb. And a fundamentally inefficient system(as alleged) will probably eat some of that money in admin cost. More than half of british public are taxpayers.
Would u be interested in lowering taxes and removing some of the benefits? OR are you comfortable with status quo. I found some great data if you are interested. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82160776.pdf Compares EU member states costs. Seems like the EU was too hasty and should have integrated slower. OR agreed to homogenize economies more by force.
-
10 hours ago, peterboat said:
Mechanisation is the way forward, some of the stuff people are doing is backbreaking. Machines do exist to do a lot of these jobs, maybe the Government is going to have to give grants to farms to buy them? Foe me this is a better idea than people traveling from other countries to do these menial jobs. When I was young I went potato and pea picking now machines do these far better than people can and with no bad backs afterwards!!
100% agree here. But i also believe in freedom of movement across the earth. One world, one race, one chance to make it work. Anything less isent worth it.
-
12 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:
Britain, being a member of the EU, must offer the same benefits to all arriving EU citizens as it does British citizens. There are several hundred million EU citizens. If the U.K. set the UBI at £5,000 p.a. this would roughly equate to the average weekly wage in over half of EU countries.
While not a legal abuse, the arriving flood following an introduction of UBI would represent a moral abuse, create an impossible strain on public services and ultimately, bankrupt the country.
Sounds like you needed longer to become less nationalistic before ready for EU. In the united states we assume some states are subsidized by others. Canada has a similar thing. It will always be true on earth. I think at some point we need to go global with our thinking. This sounds like an immigration arguement, which really cant be argued against. Its more of a social, racial choice than a fiscal one.
10 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:There's a specific thread for arguments about Brexit. My post was a factual one, in terms of finances. A major contributor to this thread is from America, he may not be aware of the ramifications of EU membership, differences in wealth between member states, and how different salary/ benefit levels can generate large movements of people between the various member states, as we have seen.
this happens all the time in america. i dont understand how you see it as a bad thing. and i appreciate the reasoning i feel as if its still on topic vaguely to welfare and continuous credits for cruising. Its interesting they were paying her credits ever. Fascinating. I imagine as tourism increases they will be pressured to make it harder to get into the cut.
-
6 hours ago, CompairHolman said:
Simplifying a system like benefits that requires strict control may not be a good idea even though it sounds good, you might end up making it wide open to massive abuse which will bankrupt the system.
How do you abuse a system where everyone gets cut a check the exact same amount....
-
Damnation. That was savage, However truer words were never spoken. Just another dumb yank who thinks hes a native.
-
30 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
One LIFETIME is totally inadequate to understand our welfare system!!
ok theres alot of truth here. but on the surface it seems alot like Americas just better organized and better funded. Dont you have a 20% VAT plus income tax?
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:See post 27.
The benefits system costs £130bn a year, and the pulation of the UK is 65m approx, which works out at a cost of approx £2,000 per head to every man, woman and child in the UK.
Does anyone know what the admin cost is in that hypothetical 2000, i know in america it can be as much as 2/3 but 50% is normal. I bet if they cut everyone a strait check it would be better for the economy and everyone. I guess thats the appeal of a UBI. Implementation of a UBI could end up worse than what either country has already if its done wrong tho.
43 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:One hours research is totally inadequate to understand our welfare system!
Another well made arguement in favor of a UBI lol
-
2 minutes ago, Bod said:
Where does the £2000 actually come from?
Bod
I have no idea it was someones claim.
-
24 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:
the £2000 is not universal but only to people who need it.
I know that.
26 minutes ago, Bod said:I feel you do not understand what the £2000 per head represents, it is what it costs everybody in the country to support the benefits system, NOT a minimum income level.
Bod
I understood that. I am musing what would be better 2000 in your hand or nebulous funds to a safety net where 50% is admin cost
31 minutes ago, Tumshie said:I think you might have misinterpreted what TWC meant when he talked about £2k per head. People aren't given £2k each that's what it costs every person in taxes to cover the costs of the paying the benefits to the people who need them. How things work in America and how they work here seem to be very different.
You guys think i misunderstand the 2000 comment. I understand the system. I just spent an hour reasearching the website. The welfare system here and in america are very similar from what i read.
2000 per head is amortized cost got it. I understood that the entire time.
-
14 minutes ago, Tumshie said:
The benefits like they are pretty hard to get and very complicated. Seems like maybe 2k for everyone might be a nonstarter for those who already have benefits. I dont see how you would ever get off these once you are on. The incentive to use benefits instead of working on wealth growth is huge.
-
38 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:
what problem does UBI solve, that makes it so attractive (other than being a catch phrase of a specific american president candidate)?
I didnt realize you have a 2000$ per head welfare system already. it would do nothing for you but simplify the system which may not be ideal. In the US its very hard to get and keep welfare without staying poor. so it keeps people from being successful.
10 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:I don't know much about the benefits system in America but the one in Britain is very established, and highly developed. It's also very expensive, around £130 billion a year, that equates to around £2,000 per head of population. UBI is being spoken about here in progressive terms, despite or perhaps because of, its simplicity.
Our welfare benefits are state by state but with federal funding. Except for disabled and old people who get social security. UBI here is a bandaid on a system so broken homeless people eat garbage in the worlds most wealthy country its a shame. Sounds like you guys are ahead of the curve. The simplicity of UBi is one of its strangths but also a weakness. Every politician should have to switch countries to learn more once in a while.
-
10 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:
Apart from the already mentioned problem of 'freedom of movement' there's another issue in Britain that makes it a non starter. Currently, the need of people to have tax payer's money is often perceived based on which group they fall into. The group 'families with children' is particularly well blessed with handouts. The principle of UBI is that a single payment to everyone is made regardless of circumstances. Just imagine if those with large families, some of whom receive close to 2 minimum wages in handouts had their payments cut, and a person without children got the same payment.
It would never be allowed to happen. More likely is UBI plus the existing benefits paid to the selected favoured groups. That would defeat one of UBI's major advantages; simplicity.
so basically you already have something better than UBI and a VAT tax and america is way behind the curve?
-
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
I don't think so. Most canal builds were financed by hard-nosed businessmen with the financial and political clout to get enabling acts of parliament passed in the teeth of opposition from the land owners whose land they carved up. Hardly dreamers!
I guess im screwed then?
-
1 hour ago, CompairHolman said:
UI would cause a dangerous stampede of immigrants trying to get to the UK, it would require far more effective border control than we have now. It would remove all the checks and balances of the benefits system and declare open house to the worlds poor.
Close the borders and shoot. I joke of course. I dunno I cant solve that one easily. I would argue that automation is a bigger threat to UK citizens than immigrants are. Plus arent you guys imploding from brexit soon. I feel like johnsons govt wouldent touch this with a 10 foot pole anyway. As a UK thought experiment VS american ubi the differences are interesting and fascinating. It would have to be EU wideor perhaps global. Immigration would get crazyer than it is but perhaps thiers a way to fix that.
-
6 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
Tis actually Lord Rusty of ditchington CBE (canal based Englishman)
Nice edits lol ai ai lord rusty of ditchington CBE
-
1 hour ago, NB Lola said:
You seem to be deliberately trying to flaunt the rules of the site, to what purpose may I ask?
Its just sarcasm, im not going to do any of thing bad promise.
-
2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:
It may have been financed by dreamers. it was built by blood sweat and tears of the navvies. Oh and probably a load of Irish Whiskey.
Very true. Somber thought really. Lots died esp for tunnels.
-
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
Hold up. Where did THAT come from!!
Why would any of us want to buy a freehold mooring? We are footloose and fancy free itinerants. One of the main attractions of boating is not to be tied down to a freehold property......
You buy it yourself!!
Interesting perspective that you share. The property was an extensive marina. That is way to ambitious for someone who lives in another country. As a club or group anything is possible. Imagine a network of properties system wide like a yacht club or golf country club. I see that may be the antithesis of canal culture at this time. But at one time the entire canal was built by dreamers. Fishing for like minded people. If i bought for myself exclusively i would lean towards a canal cottage with mooring. Having started a boat club in hawaii i know when you get passionate people together on big projects its always more fun.
-
2 hours ago, David Mack said:
Two more (if you're quick):
https://www.pugh-auctions.com/property/8630
https://www.pugh-auctions.com/property/8692
Man those are good deals for someone living in UK who could go to auction
-
2 hours ago, rusty69 said:
Give it a rest guys, the baby sitter ain't back in til next Monday
yes sir
-
1 hour ago, restlessnomad said:
I would say its unfair to not give certain extra benefits based on geographical location, health, disability etc.
Also what is the point of taking tax money and giving it back to tax payers, its pretty inefficient, one of the reasons why the last conservative govt removed low income people from tax bracket altogether.
In combination with a VAT tax Universal basic income is much more efficient than a complicated government program with requirements that cause social stratification. Welfare requirements keep the poor poor. I dunno about the UK but in the US our welfare is effective however its cost effectiveness is horrible. We spend 2 to 3 dollars for every dollar of benefits. Where as a ubi get close to 1 to 1. The money will be spent and super charge economy. Trickle up. Changing things for geography would reduce its effectiveness in attracting young folks away from the cities and into rural areas that are disappearing economically.
-
Nice. is that a slip or the entire marina? Or just the
drydock shed?
Nevermind i just clicked on link and its all there.
That would be a cool group buy. I wonder if theres enough interest to do something more ambitious like this.
-
On 06/10/2019 at 07:34, PD1964 said:
That's why most people use the Nicholson guides as with most things on the canal they've been on there a long time.
just like some people i know
-
Im hawaiian get it right.
8 hours ago, PD1964 said:Typical Yank, not the brightest of sparks, after all you joined in on this post well after the subject was over, I wonder why?
Because i am trolling all your comments. You will never comment again with out me there showing you my love the way you shared yours with me,
-
28 minutes ago, PD1964 said:
Not bothered Cole, as it's just a game to you like your "Blimps" discussions on other forums, I know your not serious about buying into the canal system so why waste people's time with your questions and fantasy ideas just like your Blimp idea's. Stick with living in Makawao and getting your kicks fantasizing about what might be. Bye Cole Santos please go and enjoy family life, no hard feelings.
I actually worked on blimp designs like 5 or more years ago. I did some rc modeling https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/261e915f9ef58744a0a83ff14552384a/Ultrablimp
. How do you know me from that forum. Man to man tho i will get on your canal before i die. Plus my wife wants to go and so it shall come to pass. First ill prob just do a 2 week hire.
Universal credit for continous cruising licence
in Living Afloat
Posted
I would you say you are correct except that communications, artificial intelligence and other technology will close the gaps between the tribes to the point of near homogeneous within 100 years. No ones political party is ready for the technological singularity.