Jump to content

Homeless living on canal & riversides


Ray T
 Share

Featured Posts

 

Actually that is not totally correct.

 

There are some circumstances where costs associated with certain types of clothing you wear for work is indeed tax deductible.

 

https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/uniforms-work-clothing-and-tools

 

There's always an exception, but even barristers can't claim for their dreary black garb.

 

I'm very glad that MJG was disputing the tax status, not the clothing required part of this!

 

Quite so.

Edited by George94
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I seem to recall that "whatever" is a phrase beloved of Cotswoldman when he runs out of arguments. And I have just noticed that MTB has said the same. What goes around comes around.

 

Where's your evidence for that? (!!!)

 

I've always wondered why clothes aren't free, since it is illegal to walk around without any on!

 

Come on Nanny State, why aren't you buying my clothes for me?

 

And why is it that dogs can stroll the towpath with no underpants on? If they can, why not me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still haven't addressed the point I see.

 

You were actually talking about free child care which in a technical sense is not a a benefit for those in financial hardship. It is means to allow people to return to work in order that they do not need to rely on benefits. But whatever my daughter discovered the 'hype' in the article you posted was pretty well just that.

 

You don't believe what the Guardian prints, fine.

 

Of course child care is a benefit. All the money that is paid to claimants under the various schemes are benefits. You could make an exception of Pensions (not pension credit) as this payment relates to contributions.

 

If people choose not to return to work no benefits beyond child benefit and child tax credit should be available. Jobseekers allowance, is just that, a benefit while you're looking for work, not a benefit because you choose to stay at home because you think it's too expensive to have your kids looked after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only speak as she found.

 

Oh and your 'contribution' argument doesn't stack up either.

 

Well that's fine then, MJG's daughter's experience is the defining case, let's forget about a national newspaper's interview with the deputy prime minister.

 

I personally see pensions as a benefit. The point I was making is that I could understand why someone might see that differently. All child related payments are benefits though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's fine then, MJG's daughter's experience is the defining case, let's forget about a national newspaper's interview with the deputy prime minister.

 

I personally see pensions as a benefit. The point I was making is that I could understand why someone might see that differently. All child related payments are benefits though.

 

Where do I claim its 'the defining case'?

 

As to the latter point, you clearly have no idea.

Words fail me.

 

Whose money is it being paid back in pension payments?

Mickey Mouse's of course...

 

He has not a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Words fail me.

 

Whose money is it being paid back in pension payments?

 

I did say I understand those who view pension differently...

 

The reason I see them as benefits is that the money paid towards them isn't saved in a super duper scheme with skilled managers aiming to maximise the return for the individual. No, it simply goes into a pot to pay current pensioners, and all the other benefit payments the government makes year to year and week to week, and other governmental spending.

 

I'm due to receive my pension 15 years from now. I don't believe I'll get one though. It's generally understood that you pay your national insurance contributions, this includes your contribution towards a pension. When pensions become unaffordable, as they will, when baby boomers like myself reach the current pension age, something will have to give. I very much doubt that younger tax payers will accept paying much higher taxes in order that pensioners can receive triple locked payments. These are the pensioners who benefited from huge capital growth with their houses, why should they, the young people, who can't even afford to buy a house, pay a load more money so these relatively rich older people can have a weekly payment?

 

Just my view of course, we won't know until it happens.

Edited by Ricco1
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did say I understand those who view pension differently...

 

The reason I see them as benefits is that the money paid towards them isn't saved in a super duper scheme with skilled managers aiming to maximise the return for the individual. No, it simply goes into a pot to pay current pensioners, and all the other benefit payments the government makes year to year and week to week, and other governmental spending.

 

I'm due to receive my pension 15 years from now. I don't believe I'll get one though. It's generally understood that you pay your national insurance contributions, this includes your contribution towards a pension. When pensions become unaffordable, as they will, when baby boomers like myself reach the current pension age, something will have to give. I very much doubt that younger tax payers will accept paying much higher taxes in order that pensioners can receive triple locked payments. These are the pensioners who benefited from huge capital growth with their houses, why should they, the young people, who can't even afford to buy a house, pay a load more money so these relatively rich older people can have a weekly payment?

 

Just my view of course, we won't know until it happens.

 

You are right that your pension contributions don't go into a fund earmarked for you; they simply go into the government's coffers and help to pay existing pensioners. However, that doesn't make them a benefit because you have actually paid for the pension that you will (you hope) receive.

 

And by the way, thank you. I am a pensioner, and I am grateful that you, as a member of the next generation, are funding my pension, just as I once funded the pensions of the previous generation.

 

It's also arguable that benefits aren't really benefits at all, but instead are simply payouts under a massive insurance scheme, the premiums for which are your NI contributions. Over a lifetime, an average person's contributions should (on average, and very theoretically) fund the "benefits" that he/she receives on life's journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are right that your pension contributions don't go into a fund earmarked for you; they simply go into the government's coffers and help to pay existing pensioners. However, that doesn't make them a benefit because you have actually paid for the pension that you will (you hope) receive.

 

I think that makes them technically a Ponzi scheme, rather than a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely obsessed

 

I see you have nothing to contribute to the thread.

 

I was in London this week and spoke to a homeless guy as I took him for breakfast. Really interesting he had spent 15 years in the Army including Iraq discharged from Army wife divorced him and he hit the bottle. Does not drink now but is just stuck in the benefits cycle where he is unable to get somewhere to live

 

As a big number are ex forces how about the government follow the USA example and actually look after those that leave the forces to help the readjust to civilian life

 

If you can afford to go to War then you can afford to look after your returning servicemen.

 

So sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will find that a certain percentage of people you see living rough have chosen to be there, or refuse help to get back to normality. I would say all of them, but thats only my opinion from what I saw when I was homeless. Many of those people are impossible to house, or even deal with, if you gave them a house they would wreck it. Unless you rehabilitate them by force, and that's not what we do.

 

 

In the case above what is a "benefits cycle" ? Why can't he get housing benefit ? Why is he not living in a hostel ? Why is he not working ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be more constructive then I'd suggest a good start might be to offer those without children the same rights as those who have have them. I.e. the right to acommodation, of a decent standard.

As a parent who was once childless I have to say that my priorities and needs regarding accommodation have changed significantly since my change in status.

 

Families with children should always take priority over childless, healthy, adults.

 

Kids living on the streets will never be a vote winner so,no matter how much the right wing might like the idea, thankfully your suggestion will never become policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will find that a certain percentage of people you see living rough have chosen to be there, or refuse help to get back to normality. I would say all of them, but thats only my opinion from what I saw when I was homeless. Many of those people are impossible to house, or even deal with, if you gave them a house they would wreck it. Unless you rehabilitate them by force, and that's not what we do.

In the case above what is a "benefits cycle" ? Why can't he get housing benefit ? Why is he not living in a hostel ? Why is he not working ?

That has not been my experience, I agree that some people find it difficult to accept help and have needs that are far beyond what help is offered, none of them wanted to be on the streets any more than wanted to be in a flat. but I have seen many people helped off of the streets or helped to help themselves. Unfortunately Hostels are closing down rapidly, five odd years ago the Government removed ring fenced funding from adult and children's services which gave free reign to close these services.

 

I sometimes think that we get hung up on an individual solution to these kinds of problems when in fact the problems are as individual as the people who face them.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is a very good question and there are some very good people attempting to find answers to that question and others who just sneer and cross the road.

I'll wager that the latter group is the largest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I said, how can you help people who don't want either ?

I would suggest that there are not actually that many people who either have full capacity or are telling the truth when they say the are happy on the street.

 

So my point is that if somebody is unwell then the answer is not housing or leaving them on the streets and nor should that be the question,but it is about treating the illness.

 

When a service such as CAMHS is so underfunded it will naturally push back and demand that other areas are dealt with first, but the reality is that Ill mental health is so serious that it needs to be the primary focus.

 

With good mental health a lot of the other issues are likely to either resolve themselves or become sustainable.

On balance, Thatcher was good for the country.

 

But by God there were some downsides. Care in the community being one of the worst.

Thatcher promoted care in the community to save money, a community that promotes care however is an aspiration worth fighting for.
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that the alternative to those asylums should be to put people on the streets to fend for themselves.

 

In a 21st century, modern, relatively wealthy country, there's no excuse for not adequately looking after the less capable members of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that the alternative to those asylums should be to put people on the streets to fend for themselves.

 

In a 21st century, modern, relatively wealthy country, there's no excuse for not adequately looking after the less capable members of society.

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

How many have you taken in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.