|
Post by JohnV on Aug 21, 2019 20:36:21 GMT
you're totally wrong. Infrastructure promotes business along the line and at the ends of the line ...... always has ..... always will. and don't confuse it with just people movement. Goods movement by rail is limited at the moment by capacity ...... removing a percentage of the passenger traffic frees up spaces for freight. This in turn gets rid of some road traffic. Just how much freight moves between London and Birmingham anyway, that's a very specific single route - why not spend the money upgrading a whole load existing lines throughout the country and give everyone a shout? business and freight follows good transport routes ....... it's a natural law of physics ...... bit like buying a bigger toolshed ...... the amount of tools immediately begin to increase to fill it
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 21, 2019 21:07:49 GMT
No doubt other areas of countryside are also being despoiled as we speak. I disagree that the countryside will be despoiled. It will be enhanced. A train whizzing along at 250mph is far more interesting to look at than some trees and hedgehogs and shit.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 21, 2019 22:03:56 GMT
I've mixed feelings on this one. On one hand I've seen the difference decent infrastructure can make. In Malaysia for example, a country (apparently) far less developed than our own has a fantastic train network. Long distance trains, local trains and skytrains all integrated within one building in the capital. On the other hand it does seem that it's a massive investment that will benefit relatively few people. Perhaps this sum of money would be better spent elsewhere, where it could benefit larger numbers of people. Unfortunately Britain has a very large bill for 'welfare'. If some of this were to be diverted to infrastructure projects it would make sense, should enable Britain to compete better with countries that see the wisdom of investment in infrastructure. So, for example, if Britain stopped paying people to have children and went ahead with HS2, I'd support this. This is unlikely, given that some groups of people feel it is their 'right' to receive taxpayer's money to make them more comfortable in their chosen lifestyles. So, on balance, I'm still undecided, but wouldn't shed any tears if it were scrapped. We've been here. We recieve £33 a week. Gazza will receive £20 a week. I agree some what, put a cap on say 2 kids. Including tax credit elements, which we don't get. This will free up an enormous amount of cash to pay for infrastructure. Ans hopefully stop people breeding for income. This should include council housing so only 2/3 bed properties will be needed.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 21, 2019 22:05:36 GMT
Ground works have already started on the Oxford canal summit ... looks like a convention for heavy plant ! No doubt other areas of countryside are also being despoiled as we speak. Hope someone decides before too much damage is done Rog Agree completely, after all a lot of people have had their houses brought with compulsory purchases to build the track, some really nice old mansions have sadly disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 21, 2019 22:19:11 GMT
I've mixed feelings on this one. On one hand I've seen the difference decent infrastructure can make. In Malaysia for example, a country (apparently) far less developed than our own has a fantastic train network. Long distance trains, local trains and skytrains all integrated within one building in the capital. On the other hand it does seem that it's a massive investment that will benefit relatively few people. Perhaps this sum of money would be better spent elsewhere, where it could benefit larger numbers of people. Unfortunately Britain has a very large bill for 'welfare'. If some of this were to be diverted to infrastructure projects it would make sense, should enable Britain to compete better with countries that see the wisdom of investment in infrastructure. So, for example, if Britain stopped paying people to have children and went ahead with HS2, I'd support this. This is unlikely, given that some groups of people feel it is their 'right' to receive taxpayer's money to make them more comfortable in their chosen lifestyles. So, on balance, I'm still undecided, but wouldn't shed any tears if it were scrapped. We've been here. We recieve £33 a week. Gazza will receive £20 a week. I agree some what, put a cap on say 2 kids. Including tax credit elements, which we don't get. This will free up an enormous amount of cash to pay for infrastructure. Ans hopefully stop people breeding for income. This should include council housing so only 2/3 bed properties will be needed. So you receive £1700 or so a year. If 5 million families receive the same (that's just a guess) that's 8.5 billion a year. Less than 10 years, HS2 is paid for, roughly the amount of time it will take to build. Presumably you wouldn't need to live in a container, if the benefit were withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 21, 2019 22:32:59 GMT
We've been here. We recieve £33 a week. Gazza will receive £20 a week. I agree some what, put a cap on say 2 kids. Including tax credit elements, which we don't get. This will free up an enormous amount of cash to pay for infrastructure. Ans hopefully stop people breeding for income. This should include council housing so only 2/3 bed properties will be needed. So you receive £1700 or so a year. If 5 million families receive the same (that's just a guess) that's 8.5 billion a year. Less than 10 years, HS2 is paid for, roughly the amount of time it will take to build. Presumably you wouldn't need to live in a container, if the benefit were withdrawn. But that is the tip of the iceberg, how many families have more than two kids? How many families claim tax credits(children element)? How much housing benefit is claimed? With my solution i reckon hs2 would be paid within a year. P.s that is the only benefit we recieve. We could raise the same amount of money by stopping benefits to people out of work for over a year, i know people who receive 4k a month in various benefits if you include all the free things they get, school dinners, glasses, prescriptions, free school trips etc
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 21, 2019 22:49:11 GMT
So you receive £1700 or so a year. If 5 million families receive the same (that's just a guess) that's 8.5 billion a year. Less than 10 years, HS2 is paid for, roughly the amount of time it will take to build. Presumably you wouldn't need to live in a container, if the benefit were withdrawn. But that is the tip of the iceberg, how many families have more than two kids? How many families claim tax credits(children element)? How much housing benefit is claimed? With my solution i reckon hs2 would be paid within a year. P.s that is the only benefit we recieve. We could raise the same amount of money by stopping benefits to people out of work for over a year, i know people who receive 4k a month in various benefits if you include all the free things they get, school dinners, glasses, prescriptions, free school trips etc Don't get into 'Gazza territory' and think that I'm having a personal swipe at you, because I disagree with the policies of the British government. Child benefits were created during the days when the man was very often the only wage earner. He often went to the pub after work and spent a fair proportion of his wages in there. He'd get home drunk, wouldn't give his wife enough money for food for the kids. Maybe gave her a bit of a beating as well, if the re warmed dinner wasn't to his liking, or she said something that annoyed him in his inebriated state. Child benefit came about because women at the time rarely had means independent from their feckless drunken husband. A good idea at the time. Why these still exist now when women have moved on well away from these horrors decades ago; I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 22, 2019 4:01:35 GMT
I've mixed feelings on this one. On one hand I've seen the difference decent infrastructure can make. In Malaysia for example, a country (apparently) far less developed than our own has a fantastic train network. Long distance trains, local trains and skytrains all integrated within one building in the capital. On the other hand it does seem that it's a massive investment that will benefit relatively few people. Perhaps this sum of money would be better spent elsewhere, where it could benefit larger numbers of people. Unfortunately Britain has a very large bill for 'welfare'. If some of this were to be diverted to infrastructure projects it would make sense, should enable Britain to compete better with countries that see the wisdom of investment in infrastructure. So, for example, if Britain stopped paying people to have children and went ahead with HS2, I'd support this. This is unlikely, given that some groups of people feel it is their 'right' to receive taxpayer's money to make them more comfortable in their chosen lifestyles. So, on balance, I'm still undecided, but wouldn't shed any tears if it were scrapped. We've been here. We recieve £33 a week. Gazza will receive £20 a week. Is that Child Benefit in the UK? £20 for one child? That's not very much. We are looking at just 5 pints of beer. 6 if you go to Wetherspoons.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 22, 2019 6:17:40 GMT
But that is the tip of the iceberg, how many families have more than two kids? How many families claim tax credits(children element)? How much housing benefit is claimed? With my solution i reckon hs2 would be paid within a year. P.s that is the only benefit we recieve. We could raise the same amount of money by stopping benefits to people out of work for over a year, i know people who receive 4k a month in various benefits if you include all the free things they get, school dinners, glasses, prescriptions, free school trips etc Don't get into 'Gazza territory' and think that I'm having a personal swipe at you, because I disagree with the policies of the British government. Child benefits were created during the days when the man was very often the only wage earner. He often went to the pub after work and spent a fair proportion of his wages in there. He'd get home drunk, wouldn't give his wife enough money for food for the kids. Maybe gave her a bit of a beating as well, if the re warmed dinner wasn't to his liking, or she said something that annoyed him in his inebriated state. Child benefit came about because women at the time rarely had means independent from their feckless drunken husband. A good idea at the time. Why these still exist now when women have moved on well away from these horrors decades ago; I don't know. Don't panic. I quite like my way. It's about the children. Personally when we had kids we were rich, but unfortunately now we're not, it helps pay for ever ending school kit and lunches, without it we would struggle. I'm not taking it personally but we're not the only families in this situation.even though i earn more now we have much less disposable income. I am just debating your point using my personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 22, 2019 6:18:49 GMT
We've been here. We recieve £33 a week. Gazza will receive £20 a week. Is that Child Benefit in the UK? £20 for one child? That's not very much. We are looking at just 5 pints of beer. 6 if you go to Wetherspoons. yes and £13 for extra children only for those earning 50k or less, or something.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 22, 2019 6:44:53 GMT
Politicians are 'earning' astronomical sums, the salaries of local councillors are in the hundreds of thousands - Child Benefit looks paltry compared to those of the Gravy Train.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 22, 2019 6:51:50 GMT
Politicians are 'earning' astronomical sums, the salaries of local councillors are in the hundreds of thousands - Child Benefit looks paltry compared to those of the Gravy Train. If you are after top money then politics is not the route to take ....... the salaries are way below what can be earned in other sectors ..... it's for those who are not good enough to go after the real high flyer positions in business can't be bothered to re-type after cocking up the "quote system"
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 22, 2019 6:52:27 GMT
Don't get into 'Gazza territory' and think that I'm having a personal swipe at you, because I disagree with the policies of the British government. Child benefits were created during the days when the man was very often the only wage earner. He often went to the pub after work and spent a fair proportion of his wages in there. He'd get home drunk, wouldn't give his wife enough money for food for the kids. Maybe gave her a bit of a beating as well, if the re warmed dinner wasn't to his liking, or she said something that annoyed him in his inebriated state. Child benefit came about because women at the time rarely had means independent from their feckless drunken husband. A good idea at the time. Why these still exist now when women have moved on well away from these horrors decades ago; I don't know. Don't panic. I quite like my way. It's about the children. Personally when we had kids we were rich, but unfortunately now we're not, it helps pay for ever ending school kit and lunches, without it we would struggle. I'm not taking it personally but we're not the only families in this situation.even though i earn more now we have much less disposable income. I am just debating your point using my personal experience. Nice one. It's good to debate with someone who isn't a man child, doesn't throw his toys out of the pram if anyone challenges his self perceived God-like status. Britain is, I think, the 6th richest country in the world. For this reason it should be up there with cutting edge technology, given that this is needed to compete, to maintain this relative richness, in the modern world. Instead it lags behind. It can't afford good infrastructure because it prioritises welfare payments. Some of these are essential in a civilised world. Others aren't, they are broad brush payments made to all, or at least most of a group that have made a certain lifestyle choice, are a certain age etc. And then we have the government subsidising the wages of millions of workers. All these 20 and fifty quid a week small sums, along with those 'entitled' to higher sums add up to 125 billion every year. Every man woman and child paying £2000 a year for 'welfare'. While less developed/ rich but more enlightened countries buy their houses, knowing they are good investments, Britain chooses to rent, with rents levels spiralling out of control.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 22, 2019 7:08:07 GMT
There shouldn't be any 'Child Benefit' needed in the first place, if wages were what they should be!
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Aug 22, 2019 7:18:16 GMT
There shouldn't be any 'Child Benefit' needed in the first place, if wages were what they should be! ?? what they should be ?? what on earth does that mean? perhaps you believe the failed centrally state-controlled economies of the Soviet Union are preferable to a market driven economy.
|
|