Beggars

[Blitzen]

You are right.
Im not saying for a second that they all just got unlucky or none are mentally disturbed.

The blanket statement that everyone on the streets falls into a 'just lazy' or 'fruitcake' category though is so wrong.

Not to mention the fact that i am sure if i had to sleep in a doorway and eat from bins, i would also develop some kind of mental frailty.

[Zadock]

Buy a Big Issue or buy them some food, don't just give them cash though.

I'm with you on this one, I've given hot drinks or a sandwich to homeless folks before but I would never give money, its probably a huge generalisation but I immediately think that if I give them money they will spend it in drugs of some sort. Who can blame them really, its escapism, i think a lot of them get drugged up so they can sleep.

[Zadock]

I Dont give money to beggars!

reason ::

There is plenty of help for homeless people regardless of what some people think, there are plenty of jobs for them to get also regardless of what people think.

So i would be giving money to Lazy people who just cant be arsed doing anything.

So no .. if you want money or food ..... get a job ...

Sorry for the double post here but I think your wrong. Ever tried to get a job when you don't have an address or a bank account?!

[TheAnimus]

Some of the truest words out there!


What????
There may well be some homeless people that dont help themselves.
There are also a MASSIVE number that are there simply through bad luck or bad choice.

Also, Belgravia has sod all to do with it! These people probably sleep there becuase:
a) They feel safer as its a posh part of town
b). The people that step over them (such as yourself) have more in their pocket so if one of them is fortunate enough to be given something, its likely to be a little more.

Well it kinda does because i was trying to bring in a widening between rich and poor in the only way i could see.

For a start of there is a 'bottom line' to how poor you can be in england, the socail state's safety net. You can't be below it. So saying a homeless person illustrates a rise in the spread is just insainity! (given that they are already BELOW it). Which was bringing up my question as to why they are been failed by the state. The resources are ment to be in place, why are they failing?

As rich as you always profess you are, you are not beyond losing everything and maybe you should remember that. Leading a priviledged life, whether gained through hard work or silver spoons isn't a lifetime guarantee.

Im not knocking you for doing well. Thats great and many would love your undoubtedly great lifestyle.
I can also be 100% positive, whether it be alot or a little bit, sometime in your life you have had a leg up. Everyone has. Just some need more of a leg up than others.

To say that these people have 'bought it upon themselves' or are 'mentally disturbed' (which is definitely what you hint at), is a very sorry state of affairs and shows how protected the bubble you live in really is.

I don't know where the f**k u get this my professing my extream wealth from, because quite frankly i know how minuscule mine is (roughly 4% of the bloke i sit oppersite). And frankley it has nothing to do with this illustration at all. Enless your saying i somehow have a moral obligation to help someone i 'step over in the street'... i'll come back to that in a second.

I'm not saying its entirely their fault, just that given how bloody lucky they are to be in england and to end up in that situation shows a lot of 'bad luck' shall we say. Now when you don't believe in a concept such as luck (or fate, or god etc.), this becomes based on a couple of things, where you started, and the actions you take. Now all i was saying with my illustration above was that there are an all too un-pleasant number who are putting an increasing strain on the services that are they're too help. Be that via Mental Illnesses or Drunkeness its still not a good thing.

so here is where i come back. Say i decide that i'm going to spend x on 'helping people' where do i choose?

I could provide medicene for some 3rd world country for steralising water.
I could give 50p to a homeless person knowing that the odds of him been a drunk (ignoring the morality of the course) are high.

Given that there are some millions of people without access to clean water. And i've only got a little spare. How should i allocate that?

In actual fact this year i'm making a one off too a Hospis thats had some large expenses this year but still, my optomisation task still yeilds.

Don't give money to the beggers.

Now this does assume that human life is equal, regardless of race/skin/colour but also what they might accomplish. That last assumption is of course not true.

Say for instance you give £10 to a homeless man, who uses it to buy some new clothes from a charity shop, after cleaning himself up and sobering up at the shealter he takes a job as a local trades unoin spokesman. Obviously his production would be more useful than clean water for some people who died of starvation.

So what your saying is we should value the life of someone who's homeless more than someone who's just born abhorrent circumstances.

Now if you want to quantify accomplishment a simple form could be almost like a vector, where you started, the direction and momentum. My point is a homeless person must either have little momentum or a bad direction, to end up where they are given the starting point of England compared to so many other parts of the world where people are dieing in their millions for lack of access to clean water....

Get where i'm going with this?

[YorkieBen]

Homeless people get benefits. They simply need a c/o address. As such they can get local housing allowance (formerly known as housing benefit) and so access private accommodation.

There are alot of people with mental health problems who are homeless, however again if it is severe then the local authority should be looking at giving them accommodation. ALOT of beggars etc are not sleeping rough. Likewise there are people on the streets who are there after walking out of a hostel etc.

I work in the homeless sector and am staggered when people have left a hostel because they weren't allowed to keep their dog or that the radiator was on all day and it was too warm (seriously)

[togoodtobetrue]

What are beggars ? because if i didn't know what a beggar was and i came to this forum for the first time i would think people are referring to some sort of vermin or alien. Not a human being.
The main reason these people are "Beggars" is because of the mentality of the average person within the society to which they where born. If society was predominantly occupied by nice people their would be no need for begging. What if something went wrong in your life ? how would you feel if people treated you like the average beggar on the street ? Some people need to grow up and not be so ignorant.

[togoodtobetrue]

Homeless people get benefits. They simply need a c/o address. As such they can get local housing allowance (formerly known as housing benefit) and so access private accommodation.

There are alot of people with mental health problems who are homeless, however again if it is severe then the local authority should be looking at giving them accommodation. ALOT of beggars etc are not sleeping rough. Likewise there are people on the streets who are there after walking out of a hostel etc.

I work in the homeless sector and am staggered when people have left a hostel because they weren't allowed to keep their dog or that the radiator was on all day and it was too warm (seriously)

You make it sound glamorous. The fact is their are people in this world with more money than sense and then their is the poor sods who have to scrimp and scrape for their next meal. Yes but they get this and they get that... Please they get peanuts. I don't care how they got their it's plane wrong.

On a slightly different note If anyone want's to pick faults with society your picking on the wrong people. The root of evil does not lie with the homeless but with the person who walks by and laughs not caring a less.

As for benefits system it's a joke.
Tell me how a 30 year old 6"5 18 stone man who lives in a 1 bed flat is entitled to very similar benefits as a 7 stone wet through 25 year old women who lives with her rich parents. What the women eats in a week the guy eats in 2 meals.

[TheAnimus]

As for bennefits system it's a joke.
Tell me how a 30 year old 6"5 18 stone man who lives in a 1 bed flat is entitled to very similar benefits as a 7 stone wet through 25 year old women who lives with her rich parents.

Don't worry, she isn't. I don't know if ur sugesting men should get more money because of their general need for more food?

But first off Housing benefit isn't the same if your supported by anyone.

JSA is still the same thou. Why should someone get less because their parents pay more tax?

The very important thing to note here is that both cases get accommodation, clean water, money for food and health care. What more could someone who's doing nothing of help for the national purse ask for?

[togoodtobetrue]

Don't worry, she isn't. I don't know if ur sugesting men should get more money because of their general need for more food?

But first off Housing benefit isn't the same if your supported by anyone.

JSA is still the same thou.

The very important thing to note here is that both cases get accommodation, clean water, money for food and health care. What more could someone who's doing nothing of help for the national purse ask for?

I wasn't suggesting men should get more money than women. A big female rugby player may need more money for food than a skinny guy who drinks cider and rarely eats much.

"Why should someone get less because their parents pay more tax?"

There's so many things wrong with this statement i can't list them all. Weather or not their parents pay more tax i couldn't care a less that's not the problem here my point is (tax aside) Using my previous analogy the big guy clearly needs more money for food than the small female does. It's a scientific fact. It's easy to just put a label on things and say well tax this i pay this and they get that. In your mind some people pay tax and other people are bone idle and so therefore deserve to live on peanuts you can't see past that so that's why you stop at.. Well tax this and tax that.

As for the national purse, take this scenario. GUY X goes to a bar Guy Y comes along and hits Guy X So Guy X tells the door man and Guy Y gets thrown out.

2 months later Guy Y gets a job as a supervisor with the same company as Guy X days later Guy Y sacks Guy X Then Guy X splits up with his wife and goes on the doll. He gets offered a job trying to sell fireplaces to old people, cold calling. He tries it for a day but doesn't like the way his colleagues are causing the old people distress by trying to sell them things they don't want so in disgust he quits his job and goes back to his 1 bedroom flat and back on the doll. Meanwhile some other upstanding member of the community loyal tax payer. (Guy Z) Gets transferred from his old job and takes Guy X's old job selling fireplaces. He appears nice on the surface but then likes to push items onto old people behind closed doors even making 1 old man cry the old man even asks him to leave but Guy Z refuses because he wants the sale not matter what.

In your opinion It's ok for Guy Z to have a nice lifestyle because he is paying taxes. But Guy X should be lucky he has basic rations because he doesn't do nothing for the national purse?

I'm not saying that's always the case. Allot of the time people on the doll and stuff are just lazy or whatever but what i'm saying is each individual is different. Just because the devil makes money and pays taxes and the angel is on JSA doesn't mean that the devil is any better.

[Funkstar]

I wasn't suggesting men should get more money than women. A big female rugby player may need more money for food than a skinny guy who drinks cider and rarely eats much.

A system that bases benefits on things like size and weight would be unworkable, there is already far too much bureaucracy involved in the benefits system already!

Anyway, you would then get into the argument that a lazy fat person shouldn't get so much money then they wouldn't be abe to buy as many cakes, thus saving the NHS money in not having to pay for expensive medical treatment.

You can't means test for everything.

[YorkieBen]

You make it sound glamorous. The fact is their are people in this world with more money than sense and then their is the poor sods who have to scrimp and scrape for their next meal. Yes but they get this and they get that... Please they get peanuts. I don't care how they got their it's plane wrong.

Its not glamorous being on benefits no. But if you can get JSA/income support then you can get local housing allowance to rent a property. And being on benefits is not necessarily being on the deadline. At least if you are on JSA it is inflation linked unlike my wage!

At the moment it is better for alot of people to stay on benefits instead of getting a low paid job because of the cost of rent etc. If you are a single person over 25 and aren't working in Leeds for example you can get £103.85 a week towards private rented accommodation - £450 pcm.

That is a fair whack of cash. Oh and you get your Ctax paid for. And if you rent is less than the LHA rate then you get to keep up to £15 extra a week.

From £60.50 you have bills etc to pay.

Compare to a min wage £5.73 an hour - 40 hr week £230 before tax and NI.

Probably come out with about £195-£200 (but might get c £5-£10) and may get c £25 help with LHA. So c £230 a week.

Rent £100 p/w
Ctax £12 p/w (at a minimum with a single person's discount)

So after rent and council tax you are looking at your net benefit of working a 40 hour week minimum wage job over JSA is about £60 odd quid a week. Woooooo.

But that is getting away from the topic. Although homeless people have a terrible time their situation is not always quite as desperate as some make out or as they may appear. However I am not trying to say there are no barriers to homeless people getting a place to live; I am not that naive.

[TheAnimus]

I wasn't suggesting men should get more money than women. A big female rugby player may need more money for food than a skinny guy who drinks cider and rarely eats much.

"Why should someone get less because their parents pay more tax?"

There's so many things wrong with this statement i can't list them all. Weather or not their parents pay more tax i couldn't care a less that's not the problem here my point is (tax aside) Using my previous analogy the big guy clearly needs more money for food than the small female does. It's a scientific fact. It's easy to just put a label on things and say well tax this i pay this and they get that. In your mind some people pay tax and other people are bone idle and so therefore deserve to live on peanuts you can't see past that so that's why you stop at.. Well tax this and tax that.

As funk says, means testing everyone would be impractical and cost more than it would save. The difference between a healthy person at either end of the scale is going to be less than £5 absolute tops per week.

The tax thing you brought up! I was saying what does the parents tax have to do with it, the childs stepfarther could be a lawyer and not give them a penny. Or they could give them thousands of pounds worth of savings. Thats what you means test, not the net income of the parents, the financial state of the claiment.

As for the national purse, take this scenario. GUY X goes to a bar Guy Y comes along and hits Guy X So Guy X tells the door man and Guy Y gets thrown out.

2 months later Guy Y gets a job as a supervisor with the same company as Guy X days later Guy Y sacks Guy X Then Guy X splits up with his wife and goes on the doll. He gets offered a job trying to sell fireplaces to old people, cold calling. He tries it for a day but doesn't like the way his colleagues are causing the old people distress by trying to sell them things they don't want so in disgust he quits his job and goes back to his 1 bedroom flat and back on the doll. Meanwhile some other upstanding member of the community loyal tax payer. (Guy Z) Gets transferred from his old job and takes Guy X's old job selling fireplaces. He appears nice on the surface but then likes to push items onto old people behind closed doors even making 1 old man cry the old man even asks him to leave but Guy Z refuses because he wants the sale not matter what.

In your opinion It's ok for Guy Z to have a nice lifestyle because he is paying taxes. But Guy X should be lucky he has basic rations because he doesn't do nothing for the national purse?

I'm not saying that's always the case. Allot of the time people on the doll and stuff are just lazy or whatever but what i'm saying is each individual is different. Just because the devil makes money and pays taxes and the angel is on JSA doesn't mean that the devil is any better.

Its an interesting idea, that whilst been a parasite someone can have the luxurious idea of moral, if you let the person make their own mind up with there always been the option of scrounging of the national purse, then where do you draw the line? Someone refusing to pick flowers because they weren't grown in an organic fashion.

The easiest way to do this is to have laws which try to reduce the hazards of bad people in business. The classic example is APR% on loans, this stops many people been miss-sold. I don't think anyone who has no job has the right to set their own sets of morals higher than those who are paying for their alternative. Because in your example it assumes that all the other alternatives where 'evil' and he couldn't of got a job in the bunny wabbits for kids factory.

But this is now waaaay of my original question of:
Why in England are homeless people abundant, we have a welfare state, why isn't it able to provide housing + JSA + heating allowances?
We've had someone who works with them come in and say its easy to get.
Whats the 'missing link'

We've also had my attempt to optimise the concept of helping people, still can't see a compelling moral reason to help someone on your doorstep rather than someone in greater need, who will have a greater difference.

[Blitzen]

Get where i'm going with this?

I get EXACTLY where you are going with this.

Unfortunately for you though, money has no baring on intelligence or argument.

As much as i enjoy reading your posts, the fact that your argument (if thats what you want to call it), is bordering on you thinking you are a cut above anyone else is sickening.

Take a day in the real world and you will see that you are a million miles from the moral and intelligent high ground you obviously consider yourself to be standing on.

[Marcos]

Wow, im surprised by the # of "Never"

[Stewart]

TheAnimus is the worst sort of snob mate, don't bother trying to reason with him.

He seems to think anyone with a pound less than him is a peasant, and exists entirely for him to abuse, and is incapable of making a post without littering it with constant 'chav scum' references.

You simply wouldn't be able to say what he does if his comments were aimed at anyone other than the working class - say it about blacks, wouldn't be allowed. Women - no chance. On these forums though, it seems you can say what you like about someone, so long as they are white, working class, and someone TheAnimus considers himself better than.

[TheAnimus]

I get EXACTLY where you are going with this.

Unfortunately for you though, money has no baring on intelligence or argument.

As much as i enjoy reading your posts, the fact that your argument (if thats what you want to call it), is bordering on you thinking you are a cut above anyone else is sickening.

Take a day in the real world and you will see that you are a million miles from the moral and intelligent high ground you obviously consider yourself to be standing on.

I realllly don't get where your coming from about it having a baring on quantity of my money.

Likewise how great i am has no bearing on my logic.

All i'm saying if when it comes to philanthropy, because it isn't nearly enough to solve all the problems of the world, you have to make a choice as to who it is your going to help.

To me it seams folly to say you should give to a begger in London say, rather than help provide clean water to part of a developing nation.

My money, My awsome greatness, dosen't enter into the optimisation problem at all, how would it?