The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

You'll never be happy if you believe that all charities are parasitic. Being altruistic is quite fulfilling.

Giving to charities is not the only way to be happy. You can be happy without ever giving to a single charity.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

Giving to charities is not the only way to be happy. You can be happy without ever giving to a single charity.

Undoubtedly. But that was never my argument.

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Oh right so the DWP staff don't get paid. I imagine a massive government department such as the DWP is highly inefficient. The CSA for example used to cost more to run than it actually collected.

The DWP have a much wider mandate then a single charity does. I did not say distributing to the poor by the government was free. There is a cost to everything.

But if you take the cost of running the DWP and take that as a % of the total amount that is collected in income taxes that go to the "poor", its a lot smaller % then 40% that's for sure. Total running cost of the DWP annually is under £1bn. The total amount of income taxes that go to benefits, income support and tax credits annually is roughly £100bn. A hell of a lot smaller in % terms then a charity.

Windofchange

61% of something is better than 100% of nothing I would say. If you have an organisation to run, there are bound to be organisational costs. Anyway, still waiting on the Ape to come along and substantiate his claim that 96% of the homeless are substance abusers.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

61% of something is better than 100% of nothing I would say.

Not necessarily. How do you know the CEOs are not using the whole charity name as a pretense to gain a lot of money personally?

Its important for people to realize, before giving a single penny to charity, where the money actually goes.

If we stop giving money to those who are run inefficiently, then we force more efficient ones to open up and hopefully people will give money to these charities, where a lot more pennies to the pound actually go to the help that is needed.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

The DWP have a much wider mandate then a single charity does. I did not say distributing to the poor by the government was free. There is a cost to everything.

But if you take the cost of running the DWP and take that as a % of the total amount that is collected in income taxes that go to the "poor", its a lot smaller % then 40% that's for sure. Total running cost of the DWP annually is under £1bn. The total amount of income taxes that go to benefits, income support and tax credits annually is roughly £100bn. A hell of a lot smaller in % terms then a charity.

It's not....

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

It's not....

Your reply is very insightful lol

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

Your reply is very insightful lol

You don't understand what you're talking about unfortunately. So I often feel it's pointless conversing with you.

But consider this, If you're giving out £100billion. Spending 1% of that is a lot of money. Now if you're giving out say £100 million. Spending £39million is quite reasonable. Especially when you consider the fact that the cost of collecting the money for the DWP is zero but processing the money costs 1 billion! I'd say that was quite high. Charities have all the costs, premises, collecting, staffing, estates etc.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

Not necessarily. How do you know the CEOs are not using the whole charity name as a pretense to gain a lot of money personally?

Its important for people to realize, before giving a single penny to charity, where the money actually goes.

If we stop giving money to those who are run inefficiently, then we force more efficient ones to open up and hopefully people will give money to these charities, where a lot more pennies to the pound actually go to the help that is needed.

They quite possibly are. If you have spent your life working your way up to the point of being a CEO, you are likely to want a significant reward? I don't see a problem with this within reason, though some reports of them earning north of 500k I think do warrant some thought.

I don't think you can view this in a capitalist way in that if a charity goes out of business another one will spring up to take it's place. If I were an entrepreneur, I wouldn't be looking to start a charity to make my millions - how do you take a profit out of donations without causing a !!!! storm!? Can you imagine paying yourself a dividend out of donations to a homeless shelter, or cancer research!?

Charities are perhaps inherently not streamlined for this very reason. I don't know what the alternative would be. How do you distribute money, run fund raising campaigns, get food to Africa etc etc without an organisation? If Crisis just left wads of ten pound notes in the doorway of their office every Sunday, this might get rid of a few million in staff costs, but would the money get well spent?

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

You don't understand what you're talking about unfortunately. So I often feel it's pointless conversing with you.

But consider this, If you're giving out £100billion. Spending 1% of that is a lot of money. Now if you're giving out say £100 million. Spending £39million is quite reasonable. Especially when you consider the fact that the cost of collecting the money for the DWP is zero but processing the money costs 1 billion! I'd say that was quite high. Charities have all the costs, premises, collecting, staffing, estates etc.

As i said the DWP do a lot more then what charities do. They have a much wider mandate.

Im not saying doing it the DWP way is cheap. There is a lot of potential to cut costs with the DWP. All i am saying is that charities are highly inefficient and pretty much replaceable by the DWP. If i had a choice, to give £1 to the poor via the DWP or a charity, its clear that my money would go a much further if i gave the £1 to the DWP.

Where would you prefer to give your hard earned dosh to - the DWP or charity?