This is Nick's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Nick's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Nick
Recent Activity
Identities are free. Just create a new user, carry on the same.
Toggle Commented Jun 4, 2011 on Suspension, Ban or Hellban? at Coding Horror
There are not 11 million, unless you start saying having to wear glasses or having a dodgy tooth is being disabled. By inflating the figures to a number that no sane person will accept you do a great diservice to those that need help. Just as with having 2.5 million on IB, it does a similar diservice. It takes money from those that need help to pay those that don't. It also means that sane people who clearly know that there are not 11 million around, realise that you think that 11 million need IB or equivalent, at their expense since they are the ones paying for it. They know that's false, and so come to the conclusion that all people on IB are swinging the lead, and they would be right to make the assumption they are being defrauded.
1 reply
Hence abolish IB completely. Let those with extra costs apply to have those met. It makes sense. We should only be funding extra costs. 1. Of the 2.5 million most are not disabled. 2. Of the rest, what percentage have extra costs? If there are extra costs we should and must meet those in full. That means you only need to interview those who apply for extra costs. That's not the 2.5 million. It's a small number, and it will be those that need the help most. ie. We can focus on the real needs. In the process we get rid of the tribunals service.
1 reply
Is it? Are you saying there are 2.5 million disabled people in the UK? There aren't. Thatcher put them on IB as a political expediant. Labour kept them there
1 reply
Do really want to spend another 45 billion a year on servicing debt? What are you going to cut to pay that 45 billion?
1 reply
Typical labour. Tax those on mimimum wage 2,500 pounds a year to fund other people's Stella and TV screens.
1 reply
The problem is that there are not 2.5 million disabled people in the UK unable to work. ie. Being on IB doesn't equate with being disabled. Being on IB by and large is a political fudge to get the unemployment figure down because its embarassing.
1 reply
. http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2770 Average length of stay in a care home is 2.5 years http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=430582&in_page_id=6 Care home costs hit 1000 a week. So 2.5 x 52 * 1000 = 130K
1 reply
I am for other reasons. It's been paid for via NI. The only reason this has come up is that the money was spent not invested. On top you have to pay income tax to get to the 8K, plus insurance tax, plus VAT, plus employee NI, plus employer NI. The total cost isn't the headline 8K, its far more. ie. It's all down to the debts the government has run up. That's why it can't be afforded. We need a doomsday book of government debt, and hypothecation of tax to pay for it. I suggest that hypothecated tax is called a labour tax (small l) so that people don't confuse it with the Labour party (capital L) Nick
1 reply
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/tories-unveil-home-protection-scheme-for-elderly-$1331660.htm The plan, which requires people to pay a one-off voluntary fee of £8,000 at age 65, would ensure all future care costs would be taken on by government. ================= Nope, its a Ponzi scheme. ie. It's just another way of raising the level of government debts, off the books. Enron accounting
1 reply
http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2770 Average length of stay in a care home is 2.5 years http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=430582&in_page_id=6 Care home costs hit 1000 a week. So 2.5 x 52 * 1000 = 130K According to Cameroon, 1 in 8 need such care. 130 / 8 = 16.25K per person. However, he's charging 8K. Why the difference? Well the 8K is paid up front. Lets say its 20 years before that care is need. That's plenty of time for the money to double in value, even with inflation taken into account. (A real rate of return of 4%) Unless you do what the government will do. Spend it now, and not invest it. The cost is ball park correct. Nick
1 reply
It should be cancelled. It's a disasterous project. 20 quid a day for a ticket just to break even and cover the interest costs? It doesn't add up. Hence it needs a massive subsidy and money being cut from other projects. Instead you could have 180 DLR systems built across London with far more benefit. It's a pork barrel project that needs to be canned because its fiscally incompentances and waste of the highest order. Nick
Toggle Commented May 5, 2009 on (11) Delaying Crossrail at starchamber/
1 reply