The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

economic

The best "charities" to give money to (i.e. investments) are startups doing innovative things in fields like medical research, technology to improve disabled/old people's lives, technologies to help with mental illnesses etc.

Basically places where the money is used efficiently and used in innovative ways.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

Who says they're vulnerable? What's wrong with it is that money directed to Shelter is not spent on shelter. The fund of money directed to charities is finite and therefore anyone who leeches it to spend on political lobbying, cobbling up fake statistics, and Shelter's other nefarious activities is diverting it away from where it could do actual good.

Otherwise you might just as well argue that all charidees are automatically good. So if I were to set up a charidee that focused on, say, assisting drivers to avoid speed points; or taught violent criminals what to say in the dock or in front of the parole board to get their sentence shortened; or taught gambling addicts tips on how to cheat the machines; those would presumably be great too.

I could call them the Road Safety Alliance, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Mission, and GambleAware. They'd all have chuggers out on the pavement soliciting donations to help road accident victims, families of criminals and gamblers. Every penny they collected would be spent on salaries or misspent. But they're charidees so that's all good.

I think you are referring to David Camerons Big Society. Wasnt he a tory?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

westernpromise wrote: »

Who says they're vulnerable? What's wrong with it is that money directed to Shelter is not spent on shelter. The fund of money directed to charities is finite and therefore anyone who leeches it to spend on political lobbying, cobbling up fake statistics, and Shelter's other nefarious activities is diverting it away from where it could do actual good.

Shelter are lobbying the government in an attempt to defeat the root cause of homelessness. You'd rather they just "fire fight" for lack of a better term.

Anyway why are you so upset. It's not like they've tricked anybody into donating and you don't donate, this does seem like a personal vendetta against shelter.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

Do you think it would be fairer if there was no nil income form and people were unable to get their housing benefit reinstated at all?

Because we don't have enough money to pay full housing costs for everyone who has no income, hence why we only do it for an arbitarily selected minority who ask about the form. Same with continuing healthcare benefit and other benefits only available to those in the know.

No I think it'd be fairer if anyone who went to talk to the council about having their benefits stopped arbitrarily was given about the form. Then they can be assessed on merit and not on knowing the password.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

What's wrong with it is that money directed to Shelter is not spent on shelter.

It does, just not in the way you like.
There is a finite charity pot and people have free choice. That it receives so much funding indicates that plenty of people feel it is worthwhile.

Would you rather they solved the problems or patch the symptoms?

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Excellent contribution to the thread you big horrible bully.

I suppose working directly with vulnerable families for around 5 years was a worthless endeavour as well. Whereas living alone, jobless with no altruistic experience makes your opinion on this subject what exactly?

Looking forward to your highly reasoned response.:D

Working with vulnerable families does not require you to be IQ smart. Its mostly emotional intelligence that is involved. Hence why i think you do not think dynamically and logically as someone like GreatApe or westernpromise does. But it might even be pointless writing all this as i am not sure you would understand.

As for your comment on me living alone and jobless - both completely wrong but i guess i would get that from someone who needs to come up with insults to temper (no pun intended) his internal anger.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

Working with vulnerable families does not require you to be IQ smart. Its mostly emotional intelligence that is involved. Hence why i think you do not think dynamically and logically as someone like GreatApe or westernpromise does. But it might even be pointless writing all this as i am not sure you would understand.

As for your comment on me living alone and jobless - both completely wrong but i guess i would get that from someone who needs to come up with insults to temper (no pun intended) his internal anger.

I wouldn't be able to judge the intelligence of a stranger over the internet using nothing but their previous employer as the deciding factor. I guess that's why you're such a genius and I'm such a dumb dumb.

:rotfl:

You sound particularly angry in this post. I suggest you try and calm down and avoid interacting with me, especially if I cause you this much distress. After all I'm bullying you aren't I?

P.S If you wish to interact with me do try and stay on topic. Cheers kid.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Back on topic........

Which taxes is it ok to evade?
Is it ok to avoid / evade tax morally when the general consensus is that public services are desperately underfunded.

Take inheritance tax for example, 1 poster who is due to receive an inheritance is wanting to avoid / evade, another poster due to provide an inheritance is happy for their offspring to be taxed on this unearned gift.

economic wrote: »

Thanks.

But yeh could all be looked down upon by HMRC

Agree IHT is evil and should be abolished.

IHT is not evil, and although it will almost certainly hit our estate, our kids will still be able to inherit an unearned £500k each tax free (providing one of us lives another 2 and a bit years), so It does not bother me in the slightest.

Some posters in this thread have commented on how useless the NHS is at treating mental illness, also stating poor mental health care causes a significant amount of homelessness. But in the same breath these posters are wanting to reduce the amount of tax they pay. I would vote for any party which wanted to increase the tax intake on income and reduce vat on essential day to day items, but this doesn't seem to be a popular idea on this board.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

I think you are referring to David Camerons Big Society. Wasnt he a tory?

What? I don't think you've understood the thread.

westernpromise

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Back on topic........

Which taxes is it ok to evade?

Evade, none, because that's by definition illegal.

Avoid? All of them.