Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 211 to 222 of 222

Thread: GE2017 take 2

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,255
    'Venture capital' rings lots of bells but I didn't know there was a government element to it.
    WA$.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,861
    Sorry John.. or shall I call you 'comrade' now?

    I understand that the broader the portfolio the lower the risk. Venture capitalists still exist, from experience they do a lot with Cambridge computer-related start-ups, which either a) muddle along in a flatish way, kind of break even and fold quickly without losing anyone too much money or b) make shedloads.

    I think being a VC is never going to lose anyone a fortune, but might make a second one. Trouble is they like to invest in posh hobbyists that went to the same school whether the proposition is all that great or not, not just some bloke from Widnes with a good idea. It's a tribal thing. The VC money doesn't necessarily flow too far from these 'centres'.

    I also wasn't aware of previous Gov involvement in venture capital.
    Last edited by Beermat; 22nd May 2017 at 20:39.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,255
    That's the thing about social housing. People do pay rents, it isn't free...
    Some pay rent, many (most?) pay their rent with money from the benefits system!

    It would be really interesting to see some figures, especially at the moment! On one end of the spectrum, Labour seem to be claiming that they can build a million council houses while still reducing the deficit to zero...

    ...on the other end of the spectrum, the Conservatives want to take everything but the last £100,000 of the homes that people have worked and saved for all their lives, so that the social care these same people need can be afforded!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 23rd May 2017 at 08:11.
    WA$.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,835
    I do hope the Terresa May train does not come off the rails, it was steaming ahead smoothly far ahead of labour and you get the feeling that complacency has started to set in with their policies and because of their belief in the unassailable lead and the unelectable Corbyn train weighed down by the unpaid for excess baggage in their manifesto.
    It is almost as if the conservatives have thought with this lead what can go wrong, let's pull into the nearest station and take on a bunch of dangerous cargo that we would normally get away with carrying due to the close proximity of the following train.. Such items as pilfering the family home to pay for care, on top of any death duties I may add. The liberal train with their latest ideas is steaming at full speed towards be beachy head, the Greens train is parked up for want of burning fossil fuels, the UKIP trains wheels have fallen off and the SNP one is stuck at customs awaiting to cross into the uk.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,835
    If you want some policies, here are some of my suggestions.

    1. No benefits until you have paid into the system for xyz number of years.
    2. No social housing for unmarried single parents, that is their parents responsibility or until item 1 is satisfied.
    3. Unemployment benefit in first year to be set at say as an arbitrary figure 65% + of national average wage or your last wage, reducing over a period of 5 years until reaching a fixed payment of food vouchers, subject to item 1.
    4. Child benefit capped at 2 children who must be resident within the UK, again subject to item 1.

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,255
    Most of those policies are totally unworkable.

    Many of the long-term unemployed have never worked so they would never 'qualify' for benefits.

    I imagine it would be almost impossible for any single-parent to work without the support of their parents, or single-patent, anyway; a council house is going to be the least of their worries.

    I think that 65% of the national average wage is much higher than the current unemployment benefit.

    However, I completely agree that something needs to be done about the burgeoning 'benefits' budget; not just unemployment benefit, housing benefit and child benefit, that make-up one part of that budget, but also pensions, in-work benefits and social care, that make-up the rest.
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 23rd May 2017 at 08:13.
    WA$.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,861
    It would be interesting to see the figures re. housing. Housing benefit is actually ridiculously hard to get, as is anywhere affordable to live. I expect by far the greatest amount of the housing benefit that does circulate currently ends up with private landlords, not back in the system. The thing to do surely isn't to make that loss to the state worse by reducing the proportion of state housing?

    I was proposing cheap housing for workers who are not on benefits. An old fashioned idea - you find a job, and work. In return you can afford a place, which you pay for, for you and your family.

    Currently the state is subsidising artificially high rents.
    Last edited by Beermat; 23rd May 2017 at 08:57.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    9,790
    Fully agree with you on your last point BM

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,255
    A private landlord who provides a house for somebody on housing-benefit is, in effect, providing a 'council house'; a council house that cost the government nothing, costs nothing to maintain and costs nothing to administer. This is one of the problems with this argument; there are lots of 'grey areas' and both solutions have advantages and disadvantages.

    One thing I will say about housing-benefit; it should never be paid to the recipient, it should always go directly to the council or to the private landlord!

    The problem with building 'cheap housing for workers' is that housing is in short supply and is allocated to those most 'in need'; that inevitably means that the unemployed single-parent will get priority!
    WA$.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,255
    Housing benefit is actually ridiculously hard to get...
    If it is 'ridiculously' hard to get it shouldn't be costing the state £27billion per year!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 23rd May 2017 at 10:19.
    WA$.

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,861
    There are fewer eligible this year than last, so personal knowledge of other's recent experience aside it can't be getting any easier, surely.

    The state paying a private landlord housing benefit does not 'cost the government nothing', though, does it? The property and its maintenence is paid for out of that money paid by the government to the landlord - and the government also pay for the landlord's profit margin on top of that. Essentially the Government are paying two parties, not one, for the same home.
    Last edited by Beermat; 23rd May 2017 at 10:34.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    2,861
    "The problem with building 'cheap housing for workers' is that housing is in short supply and is allocated to those most 'in need'; that inevitably means that the unemployed single-parent will get priority!"

    Yes, but that only pertains when it is in short supply - so it's not a problem with building more, it's actually a problem with NOT building more!
    Last edited by Beermat; 23rd May 2017 at 10:46.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 2 guests)

  1. Beermat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES