paulleach53.bsky.social
2,914 posts
118 followers
96 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
I think putting elderly parents in a home is the first reaction for most people, rather than the last resort
At the same time, they think they should be able to inherit all their parent's wealth
comment in response to
post
Yes, i am not sure i understand the problem?
They will get some kind of benefit like attendance allowance, you would get carers allowance
Either they are important to you, or they arent
comment in response to
post
Sometimes it is
comment in response to
post
no, you misunderstand, we had no money, we actually had to sell our house during negative equity and pretty much just got out what we owed
we moved into a rental property, but what was i supposed to do with my dad? put him in a home?
they are the same in terms of what you do if you love someone
comment in response to
post
it is currently paying around 1 billion a year in interest
even if you eliminate this entirely it could still not stop all the leaks and sewage going into rivers
the estimate to provide clean water with no leaks is around £20 billion, if you allow have of this it will take 10 yrs at current rates
comment in response to
post
corruption suggests criminal intent, but no one has been prosecuted so it is inaccurate
most CEOs are arrogant, nice guys dont get to be bosses
comment in response to
post
you can access more help looking after an adult than a child, but the principle is the same, my dad did what he had to to look after me, i did the same with him
money wasnt really a consideration
comment in response to
post
the fact that thames have borrowed more than they have paid out in dividends suggests that the core business doesnt receive enough money from customers to keep the business on course
a nationalised business will have the same problem, it will either have to run at a loss, or put prices up
comment in response to
post
correct, there is little help when bringing up a child, there are other professionals available for adults
i had to take my dad for far more appointments than i did either of my kids
comment in response to
post
as i have said, if that person cant pay the problem is not with the cost of a standard commodity it is with the income of that person.
Nationalising water will make no difference to that at all, it will certainly not reduce prices
comment in response to
post
having it in government hands will not make it cheaper and will not improve quality
comment in response to
post
you know full well the difference, a social tariff in one area means that 2 customers in that area pay different prices with no reason at all
comment in response to
post
they move into rented accommodation, or they ask their parents for help with the living costs because they are acting as the parents carers
did those parents consider that when their kids were little?
i certainly didnt when my mum died and my blind dad couldnt live on is own
comment in response to
post
you know full well that is not the same thing.
I am talking about 2 customers of the same company paying different rates based on their circumstances, not people in different areas
comment in response to
post
i agree, i think people should stop concentrating on owning their own home if they cant afford it from their salary
Building more and more houses would lower house price in the long term
comment in response to
post
you are still looking down the wrong end of the telescope
if water is too expensive for the poor it is too expensive for everyone.
There is no justification for saying you can have it cheap, he has to pay more for the same water
comment in response to
post
all reform do is wait to see which way the govt is looking and then jump there.
When they come up with an original policy it is ridiculed
Todays gem from Nigel:
Re-open Welsh coal mines to provide coke to restart the blast furnaces...he thinks there are 1000's of welshman who want to go down and dig
comment in response to
post
matter less in what way?
You understand that there are an awful lot of people, millions in fact, who will inherit nothing at all from their parents, pretty much like me and my siblings.
We were left with the memories
Would i have preferred more money and fewer memories?
not one little bit
comment in response to
post
you can try and reduce care costs by looking after your elderly parents yourself?
Kind of like they did when you were awkward, wouldnt do as you were told, had a tendency to wander off, and needed to be changed regularly, all without the incentive of a payout too
comment in response to
post
if your parents loved you they would let you have some of it now.
Perhaps they are trying to teach you a lesson about self sufficiency because they are leaving everything to the cats home?
comment in response to
post
you dont think that being given 60% of someone's wealth that you havent had to work for isnt a big chunk?
comment in response to
post
you sound like your complaining?
I dont disagree with the post, though both my working class parent struggled until they died, never bought their own house, but what is the point in discussing it?
Of course it isnt right that the current middle age generation are probably worse off, now move on
comment in response to
post
the BBC is not funded by the government, sacking every news presenter would produce no money for WFA
comment in response to
post
perhaps the BBC could simply stick to publishing things which are factual, and not worry too much about the perception of individuals
I try and fact check the things i put on here, after that I dont care if people agree or not
comment in response to
post
see my previous posts, it is not right for a company to have to sell something at a preferential rate
it is the job of government to ensure, wherever possible, that people have enough to buy, at the very least, the basics
Your argument seems to be that there are some people too poor to afford water
comment in response to
post
I think had the govt had a communicator like Alistair campbell, or when interviewed by the likes of Madeley and t Phillips had simply asked them why they needed it, it would have been better
Had they said that the energy cap was almost £200 lower last winter it might have helped
comment in response to
post
They won't go bust, offstage and the govt are already looking at what they will do to prevent it
comment in response to
post
My apologies, I put it badly
I didn't mean that they don't have them, I meant it's a nonsense that they exist, that a company is forced to sell a product cheaper to one group than another
Presumably they claim the difference from the government?
comment in response to
post
They haven't gone bust, and, technically, because of the essential nature of the service and workforce etc, it won't go bust
Govts can borrow cheaper when fiscally responsible, I refer you to the Truss debacle
You concede there would still be a debt?
That water can't pay for itself?
comment in response to
post
They are not my beloved water companies and it is a nonsense that they have social tariffs
comment in response to
post
You know little about me, or my views on thatcherism
I hate the way she destroyed industries in this country
Equally there are two distinct problems with renationalisation
One, you want to do it for nothing, that's not how it works
Two, you think the govt is better at running businesses, they arent
comment in response to
post
I am sure you know I meant the govt when I said taxpayer
Not all customers are taxpayers, are they?
There will still be a debt or a massive rise in bills
comment in response to
post
Do you want ASDA to have special prices for the poor?
How about a special range of clothes at M&S?
comment in response to
post
I think we have discussed this before, no one needs WFA
A social tariff?
What a nonsense!
If you truly believe that there is a group of people who can't afford an essential commodity you should look at their income and provide a choice, not look at their expenditure and force it on them
comment in response to
post
Because water needs massive investment and it has to come from somewhere, which won't be the taxpayer and no minister is going to put it on customers
Once you stop believing in a free money tree, life becomes much more difficult
comment in response to
post
That's not what the article you posted says
You either think that's what they are doing or you don't
It isn't often I discuss a source with someone, and they tell me their source is wrong
comment in response to
post
What would be likely if it was nationalised is the govt would seek a 'partner' to invest in it, possibly like PFI, and in 10 yrs time you would have a debt again
comment in response to
post
The estimate is that it requires up to £20 billion to clean up thames water, they currently pay £1 billion in debt
It would be a sizeable saving but a tiny amount, especially when some of it gets lost in the inefficiencies of nationalisation
comment in response to
post
There was little investment before privatisation, there will be little after nationalisation unless the price goes up
It is presented as a cure all for the water industry, it isnt
comment in response to
post
It's funny you chose to quote something which shows they are doing the opposite of what you want for water
It clearly says it will provide more autonomy to front line services and local leaders
Wes is mot going to be making major decisions on a day to day basis
comment in response to
post
You want a minister to decide the level of water pricing?
It will have the effect of increasing prices by inflation and provide no money for the investment required, unless you somehow imagine the income would be enough
It wasn't before privatisation, it won't be after
comment in response to
post
Not yet it hasn't
Crucially we have no idea what will happen afterwards and how much direct control the minister will have, unless you know differently?
comment in response to
post
I am sure you would, but it won't happen
Was that what you are calling proof?
comment in response to
post
Ministers do not get paid to make day to day decisions, they are there to make policy
It would actually make it worse
Name any other dept where the minister runs it?
comment in response to
post
because we can find prove of a bent cop, a so called captured regulator is more subjective
comment in response to
post
no minister would be stupid enough to accept that
it is such a poison chalice.
comment in response to
post
surely there will be a protest from the Australian ambassador?
and a warning that America is not a safe country?
It is possibly time to start organising a boycott of the Olympics if foreigners wont be safe
It had descended back to the days of the wild west
comment in response to
post
there is no way of knowing whether or not any pension funds are shareholders, would it be fair for those to lose money for the pensioners involved?
what amazes me is that some of the people that call for this would be appalled if someone like mike ashley bought a co. and refused to honour its debts
comment in response to
post
It would only be zero if the intention was to pay nothing at all to the debtors, creditors, or shareholders which is morally wrong, especially the creditors.
There will be lots of small firms who are owed money by Thames water that supplied goods or services in good faith, why should they suffer?
comment in response to
post
it seems pretty simple, on the one side the water companies and the government who say it will be costly, on the other a left wing think tank who says it could be free.
Given that both sides have an agenda the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, that is to say , between zero and £99 billion