Discussion:
They just had to make it hideously complicated ...
Add Reply
RH156RH
2020-03-20 19:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government totally wrecking our economy. RH
CheeseySock
2020-03-20 20:35:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers
and the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be
administered by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals
will also leave the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be
impossible to interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the
nod.Al Sunak had to do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a
month with extra for children. That would have been as simple as any
scheme to stop the government totally wrecking our economy. RH
cannot do it without records of the transactions though...

someone on one of talk radio stations said, based on last 3 years tax
returns.... if that correlates then not much further investigation, and
investigate the rest, unless they are pakis/indis or arabs or mossephlegm
or kike of course!


the poor things!
Keema's Nan
2020-03-21 08:41:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).

I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money. The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
Andy Walker
2020-03-21 11:55:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra
for children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop
the government totally wrecking our economy. RH
No it wouldn't. The government has no existing mechanism to
give money to every adult. They have mechanisms to give money to
certain groups -- those on PAYE, pensioners, those on benefits, ...
-- but those groups overlap and there are millions who fall outside
all of them. PAYE and UC changes are as simple as it gets; and, as
Post by Keema's Nan
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is
retired and has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more
government money.
Likewise. OK, I wouldn't actually turn it down, but I don't
need it for any reason related to CV. Almost to the contrary, as I
can no longer spend in coffee shops, pubs or restaurants so am saving
considerable amounts [though not as much as £1500pm].
Post by Keema's Nan
The people who need it are those like my youngest
son. He was going to buy a new motorbike, [...].
Ah. Well, not having a motorbike, new or otherwise, would
do a lot more for his life expectation than any amount of social
distancing!
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-21 12:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[...] Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra
for children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop
the government totally wrecking our economy. RH
No it wouldn't. The government has no existing mechanism to
give money to every adult. They have mechanisms to give money to
certain groups -- those on PAYE, pensioners, those on benefits, ...
-- but those groups overlap and there are millions who fall outside
all of them. PAYE and UC changes are as simple as it gets; and, as
Sigh. As it is not means tested the giving of money to everyone is much less complicated. The government has bags of data to identify recipients

1. PAYE members

2. The tax details of not just the full time self employed but everyone who has made a declaration of earnings

3. State pensioners

4. Private pensioners

5. The electoral register

6 NHS patiemts

7 Those in receipt of in work benefits

8 Those in receipt of out of work benefits

That is just a few of them. With modern IT the merging of large data fields and the checking for duplicates etc is available .

The beauty of what I suggest is that there needs to be no check on claimants beyond establishing their identity. RH
Andy Walker
2020-03-21 14:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 21/03/2020 12:35, RH156RH wrote:
[I wrote:]
Post by RH156RH
[...] The government has no existing mechanism to
give money to every adult. They have mechanisms to give money to
certain groups -- those on PAYE, pensioners, those on benefits, ...
-- but those groups overlap and there are millions who fall outside
all of them. PAYE and UC changes are as simple as it gets; [...]
Sigh. As it is not means tested the giving of money to everyone is
much less complicated.
It's not "much less complicated". PAYE and UC are completely
separate schemes, and it's little more than the stroke of a pen to
change some of the resulting numbers, which is why they expect to
be able to implement it from scratch in a few days. Giving £1500pm
is not in itself interestingly easier or harder than upping UC or
returning 80% of salary, but there is no unified mechanism for
paying your money -- some will want it through PAYE, some through
UC, some will fall through cracks. It can't be sorted out in days;
people have been trying to unify some of your databases for years,
admittedly with rather less than current urgency.
Post by RH156RH
The government has bags of data to identify
recipients
1. PAYE members
[...]
Post by RH156RH
8 Those in receipt of out of work benefits
That is just a few of them.
Quite. You already are involving at least three, perhaps
four, departments, you are proposing to export personal data to
applications for which they were not intended. There are all
sorts of "gotchas" waiting for you, and you need to get this
largely sorted in days, which is a recipe for disasters and for
unintended consequences. No doubt if you thought about it you
can think of another dozen or hundred databases to include in
your madcap scheme. Meanwhile, the PAYE and UC databases are
up and running, and cover the people the Chancellor was keen to
help yesterday.
Post by RH156RH
With modern IT the merging of large data fields and the checking for
duplicates etc is available .
It is if the databases are compatible and if there are
unique identifiers to check. But they aren't, and there aren't.
Some, such as NI number, come close, but not everyone has one,
and there are duplicates. I have friends who have been involved
in this sort of area; it's not a pretty sight, and a number of
projects have been abandoned after a year or three.
Post by RH156RH
The beauty of what I suggest is that there needs to be no check on
claimants beyond establishing their identity. RH
"Claimants" now? Is this not to be automatic? How long
will it take the counter staff to establish millions of identities
of people many of whom are confined to barracks, and many of whom
don't have passports or utility bills or fixed abodes or ...?
Fraudsters' paradise!
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2020-03-21 14:18:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[I wrote:]
Post by RH156RH
[...] The government has no existing mechanism to
give money to every adult. They have mechanisms to give money to
certain groups -- those on PAYE, pensioners, those on benefits, ...
-- but those groups overlap and there are millions who fall outside
all of them. PAYE and UC changes are as simple as it gets; [...]
Sigh. As it is not means tested the giving of money to everyone is
much less complicated.
It's not "much less complicated". PAYE and UC are completely
separate schemes, and it's little more than the stroke of a pen to
change some of the resulting numbers, which is why they expect to
be able to implement it from scratch in a few days. Giving £1500pm
is not in itself interestingly easier or harder than upping UC or
returning 80% of salary, but there is no unified mechanism for
paying your money -- some will want it through PAYE, some through
UC, some will fall through cracks. It can't be sorted out in days;
people have been trying to unify some of your databases for years,
admittedly with rather less than current urgency.
there are also data 'protection' concerns
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2020-03-21 12:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Ah. Well, not having a motorbike, new or otherwise, would
do a lot more for his life expectation than any amount of social
distancing!
certainly..but also for his ability to commute to profitable
activity...
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2020-03-21 13:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra
for children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop
the government totally wrecking our economy. RH
No it wouldn't. The government has no existing mechanism to
give money to every adult. They have mechanisms to give money to
certain groups -- those on PAYE, pensioners, those on benefits, ...
-- but those groups overlap and there are millions who fall outside
all of them. PAYE and UC changes are as simple as it gets; and, as
Post by Keema's Nan
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is
retired and has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more
government money.
Likewise. OK, I wouldn't actually turn it down,
Why not?
but I don't
need it for any reason related to CV. Almost to the contrary, as I
can no longer spend in coffee shops, pubs or restaurants so am saving
considerable amounts [though not as much as £1500pm].
Post by Keema's Nan
The people who need it are those like my youngest
son. He was going to buy a new motorbike, [...].
Ah. Well, not having a motorbike, new or otherwise, would
do a lot more for his life expectation than any amount of social
distancing!
Andy Walker
2020-03-21 14:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is
retired and has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more
government money.
Likewise. OK, I wouldn't actually turn it down,
Why not?
Because turning it down would, BRD, require me to fill in a
detailed disclaimer form saying that I understood the consequences
of my action, and I would not be suing them for the money later,
and that three people could confirm that I was of sound mind;
repeat at least once a year, if not every month. At my age, I'm
all in favour of doing the easiest thing. After tax and [though
I hope not for a few years yet] IHT, it would "only" be £540pm
anyway.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-21 15:44:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is
retired and has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more
government money.
Likewise. OK, I wouldn't actually turn it down,
Why not?
Because turning it down would, BRD, require me to fill in a
detailed disclaimer form saying that I understood the consequences
of my action, and I would not be suing them for the money later,
and that three people could confirm that I was of sound mind;
repeat at least once a year, if not every month. At my age, I'm
all in favour of doing the easiest thing. After tax and [though
I hope not for a few years yet] IHT, it would "only" be £540pm
anyway.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Dear oh dear, It would not taxed. Keep it simple. Talk about bounded minds... RH
Andy Walker
2020-03-21 18:45:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 21/03/2020 15:44, RH156RH wrote:
[Keema:]
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
Likewise. OK, I wouldn't actually turn it down,
Why not?
Because turning it down would, BRD, require me to fill in a
detailed disclaimer form saying that I understood the consequences
of my action, and I would not be suing them for the money later,
and that three people could confirm that I was of sound mind;
repeat at least once a year, if not every month. At my age, I'm
all in favour of doing the easiest thing. After tax and [though
I hope not for a few years yet] IHT, it would "only" be £540pm
anyway.
Dear oh dear, It would not taxed.
That's the first time you've said that. There are limits
to our mind-reading abilities.

OK, so you're giving Keema and me and millions of other
middle-class pensioners an income equivalent to £18Kpa x 10/6 or
£30Kpa. Personally, I don't have particularly expensive tastes,
and SWMBO and I don't spend our current income. An extra £60Kpa
between us is wasted at a time when we can't go out to spend it.
We have all the TVs and cars we need already ....
Post by RH156RH
Keep it simple.
But, as discussed nearby, it's nowhere near as simple as
you are making out. Nothing is in place today to make it happen.
When I have expanded on proposals for UBI/CI, I have proposed a
ten-year program to prepare, test and phase-in the payments;
you want to do something equivalent in days. It's simply not
feasible, and as [allegedly] a former civil servant you must
know that.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-21 19:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[Keema:]
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
Likewise. OK, I wouldn't actually turn it down,
Why not?
Because turning it down would, BRD, require me to fill in a
detailed disclaimer form saying that I understood the consequences
of my action, and I would not be suing them for the money later,
and that three people could confirm that I was of sound mind;
repeat at least once a year, if not every month. At my age, I'm
all in favour of doing the easiest thing. After tax and [though
I hope not for a few years yet] IHT, it would "only" be £540pm
anyway.
Dear oh dear, It would not taxed.
That's the first time you've said that. There are limits
to our mind-reading abilities.
In the context it went without saying, well, without saying to everyone except extreme bounded mind.

The reason it went without saying is because as I had made very clear the general purpose of the grant I proposed would be to bolster consumption. The vast majority of the people who received it would need to spend it to pay their expenses such as rent, mortgage, food, travel costs and such forth because they are poor with little by way of savings. There is a great deal of truth in the saying that most people are only two paypackets away from destitution,.... RH
Post by Andy Walker
OK, so you're giving Keema and me and millions of other
middle-class pensioners an income equivalent to £18Kpa x 10/6 or
£30Kpa. Personally, I don't have particularly expensive tastes,
and SWMBO and I don't spend our current income. An extra £60Kpa
between us is wasted at a time when we can't go out to spend it.
We have all the TVs and cars we need already
See above my comments on the grant being saved. ..
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Keep it simple.
But, as discussed nearby, it's nowhere near as simple as
you are making out.
I didn't say it was an easy job just that it would be by far the simplest way of putting money in people's pockets . rH


Nothing is in place today to make it happen.
Post by Andy Walker
When I have expanded on proposals for UBI/CI, I have proposed a
ten-year program to prepare, test and phase-in the payments;
you want to do something equivalent in days. It's simply not
feasible, and as [allegedly] a former civil servant you must
know that.
Oh dear you really are Mr Unnecessary-Complication. The money needs to go into economy now without strings. Your proposal is unfit for purposes. Test it over ten years indeed! ROTFL!!!!!! RH
Andy Walker
2020-03-21 20:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Dear oh dear, It would not taxed.
That's the first time you've said that. There are limits
to our mind-reading abilities.
In the context it went without saying, well, without saying to
everyone except extreme bounded mind.
So we will all have our ordinary current income, taxed, and
your proposal, untaxed, and that's supposed to be a particularly
simple proposal? It would be much simpler to supply the extra as
taxable, then no-one needs to make special arrangements. If it
bothers you, pay £1500pm x 5/4 == £1875pm taxable, then it's also
a progressive proposal -- poor people will get more than rich.
Post by RH156RH
The reason it went without saying is because as I had made very clear
the general purpose of the grant I proposed would be to bolster
consumption. The vast majority of the people who received it would
need to spend it to pay their expenses such as rent, mortgage, food,
travel costs and such forth because they are poor with little by way
of savings. There is a great deal of truth in the saying that most
people are only two paypackets away from destitution,.... RH
You're not bolstering consumption if the money goes on
those things. Most people are financially unaffected by CV; it's
the minority who lose their jobs or their clients who need financial
support to pay rent, etc. Yes, that's a lot of people, tho' most of
them are substantially helped already by the Chancellor's proposals;
but far from a majority, let alone a vast majority, of adults.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Keep it simple.
But, as discussed nearby, it's nowhere near as simple as
you are making out.
I didn't say it was an easy job just that it would be by far the
simplest way of putting money in people's pockets . rH
But it isn't. It just isn't. You want tens of millions
of people to claim this money by an assortment of routes. It's
a bureaucratic nightmare, esp if done in a rush. By contrast,
the Chancellor's "hideously complicated" proposals consist of
minor tweaks to existing schemes. It's much, much simpler than
your proposal, and more effective in reaching those who need it.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Nothing is in place today to make it happen.
When I have expanded on proposals for UBI/CI, I have proposed a
ten-year program to prepare, test and phase-in the payments;
you want to do something equivalent in days. It's simply not
feasible, and as [allegedly] a former civil servant you must
know that.
Oh dear you really are Mr Unnecessary-Complication. The money needs
to go into economy now without strings.
But you can't make it happen "now", for reasons discussed
previously. You would be hard put to get it working adequately,
without safeguards or any care for data protection or testing or
fraud, within a month. You could pay it to those on benefits, or
to those in PAYE. Oh, look, that's what the Chancellor has done.
Post by RH156RH
Your proposal is unfit for
purposes. Test it over ten years indeed! ROTFL!!!!!! RH
Prepare, test and phase-in, not merely test. For UBI, a
ten-year implementation [which could be reduced to six years or
so if everything goes unexpectedly well] is acceptable, starting
from scratch so that HMRC and DWP have time to combine their
systems, etc., so that all the edge cases can be worked out, so
that we can be sure that no-one is seriously disadvantaged, and
so on. Even an accelerated version of that is infeasible for
your proposal. It sounds good only because you haven't thought
it through.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-22 11:46:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Dear oh dear, It would not taxed.
That's the first time you've said that. There are limits
to our mind-reading abilities.
In the context it went without saying, well, without saying to
everyone except extreme bounded mind.
So we will all have our ordinary current income, taxed, and
your proposal, untaxed, and that's supposed to be a particularly
simple proposal? It would be much simpler to supply the extra as
taxable, then no-one needs to make special arrangements. If it
bothers you, pay £1500pm x 5/4 == £1875pm taxable, then it's also
a progressive proposal -- poor people will get more than rich.
Bounded mind thinking. It does not matter what happens to the money beyond promoting consumption. Ye gods! RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
The reason it went without saying is because as I had made very clear
the general purpose of the grant I proposed would be to bolster
consumption. The vast majority of the people who received it would
need to spend it to pay their expenses such as rent, mortgage, food,
travel costs and such forth because they are poor with little by way
of savings. There is a great deal of truth in the saying that most
people are only two paypackets away from destitution,.... RH
You're not bolstering consumption if the money goes on
those things. Most people are financially unaffected by CV; it's
the minority who lose their jobs or their clients who need financial
support to pay rent, etc. Yes, that's a lot of people, tho' most of
them are substantially helped already by the Chancellor's proposals;
but far from a majority, let alone a vast majority, of adults.
You live in an ivory tower. There are huge numbers of people, perhpahs more than n50% of the population, who live hand to mouth. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Keep it simple.
But, as discussed nearby, it's nowhere near as simple as
you are making out.
I didn't say it was an easy job just that it would be by far the
simplest way of putting money in people's pockets . rH
But it isn't. It just isn't. You want tens of millions
of people to claim this money by an assortment of routes. It's
a bureaucratic nightmare,
It would be demanding but far preferable administratively than what is happening. All the civil servants have to do is identify the person. With the proposed bail out the state has to operate not one but half a dozen separate ways of getting money directly or indirectly to people. RH


esp if done in a rush. By contrast,
Post by Andy Walker
the Chancellor's "hideously complicated" proposals consist of
minor tweaks to existing schemes. It's much, much simpler than
your proposal, and more effective in reaching those who need it.
Dear oh dear talk about bounded minds. Tell us what these "minor tweaks are. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Nothing is in place today to make it happen.
When I have expanded on proposals for UBI/CI, I have proposed a
ten-year program to prepare, test and phase-in the payments;
you want to do something equivalent in days. It's simply not
feasible, and as [allegedly] a former civil servant you must
know that.
Oh dear you really are Mr Unnecessary-Complication. The money needs
to go into economy now without strings.
But you can't make it happen "now", for reasons discussed
previously. You would be hard put to get it working adequately,
without safeguards or any care for data protection or testing or
fraud, within a month. You could pay it to those on benefits, or
to those in PAYE. Oh, look, that's what the Chancellor has done.
Post by RH156RH
Your proposal is unfit for
purposes. Test it over ten years indeed! ROTFL!!!!!! RH
Prepare, test and phase-in, not merely test.
You bounded mind limitation horridly exposed. Expedition is what is required not delay. This matter requires people who can see the wood for the trees.
Part of seeing the wood for the trees is the ability to spot the important trees in the wood.

This is work way beyond the comprehension of extreme bounded minds like yours

RH


For UBI, a
Post by Andy Walker
ten-year implementation [which could be reduced to six years or
so if everything goes unexpectedly well] is acceptable, starting
from scratch so that HMRC and DWP have time to combine their
systems, etc., so that all the edge cases can be worked out, so
that we can be sure that no-one is seriously disadvantaged, and
so on. Even an accelerated version of that is infeasible for
your proposal. It sounds good only because you haven't thought
it through.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
The irony becomes celestial... RH
Andy Walker
2020-03-22 17:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
[...] If it
bothers you, pay £1500pm x 5/4 == £1875pm taxable, then it's also
a progressive proposal -- poor people will get more than rich.
Bounded mind thinking.
Do stop trolling, Robert. It doesn't annoy or upset me,
it's just a signal that you don't have a proper argument and so
it a waste of your time and my electrons.
Post by RH156RH
It does not matter what happens to the money
beyond promoting consumption.
You have not given us any hint as to how it promotes
consumption. You're more than doubling the average [or median]
household income, at a time when we can't go on cruises, or on
holidays, or dine out, and there are severe limits on how many
new cars and TVs we need. The government, correctly, sees it
as more important to help people and businesses survive.

[...]
Post by RH156RH
You live in an ivory tower. There are huge numbers of people,
perhpahs more than n50% of the population, who live hand to mouth.
There are indeed many such people, but it's nowhere near
half the population, even less is it the "vast majority" that you
claimed. Again, it's more important to help those who have lost
their jobs or their livelihoods than to give £36000pa tax free
that we can't spend to the rest of us.

[...]
Post by RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
I didn't say it was an easy job just that it would be by far the
simplest way of putting money in people's pockets . rH
But it isn't. It just isn't. You want tens of millions
of people to claim this money by an assortment of routes. It's
a bureaucratic nightmare,
It would be demanding but far preferable administratively than what
is happening. All the civil servants have to do is identify the
person.
I'm amazed that an alleged former civil servant thinks it's
that easy to identify someone. Have you tried [eg] to open a bank
account recently? All that "list A, list B" palaver, which doesn't
even work very well and which many people can't satisfy [though the
fraudsters apparently find it easy to generate multiple identities].
That was in normal times; now imagine the same thing when we can't
go ourselves to the council/DWP/HMRC offices and talk to someone
face to face.
Post by RH156RH
With the proposed bail out the state has to operate not one
but half a dozen separate ways of getting money directly or
indirectly to people. RH
All of which are minor tweaks to existing schemes. Or did
you suppose that when the Chancellor announces an increase in VAT,
or in pensions, or in the personal allowance, the entire CS is in
lock-down for weeks trying to write new programs to cope? The rest
of us assume, correctly, that there are some parameters in the
existing program which just need changing.

Meanwhile, I remind you that your proposal involved the
marrying of dozens of existing databases not intended to be
combined into one new scheme. If you knew anything at all about
the subject, you would not suppose that that process is simpler
that using those same databases for the purposes for which they
were set up.
Post by RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Your proposal is unfit for
purposes. Test it over ten years indeed! ROTFL!!!!!! RH
Prepare, test and phase-in, not merely test.
[...] Expedition is what is required not delay.
You seem not to have noticed that "ten years" was for the
introduction of a properly tested UBI scheme. How long it would
take to introduce your scheme, with all its faults [and therefore
all the failings that would particularly afflict those who need
help the most] is anyone's guess, but it is going to be months
rather than the days that the Chancellor's proposals involve,
even if all goes better than might be expected.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-23 11:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
[...] If it
bothers you, pay £1500pm x 5/4 == £1875pm taxable, then it's also
a progressive proposal -- poor people will get more than rich.
Bounded mind thinking.
Do stop trolling, Robert. It doesn't annoy or upset me,
it's just a signal that you don't have a proper argument and so
it a waste of your time and my electrons.
What trolling? Purely factual descriptions of your limitations... RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
It does not matter what happens to the money
beyond promoting consumption.
You have not given us any hint as to how it promotes
consumption.
SIGH. It promotes consumption because people need money to live. Dear oh dear...RH

You're more than doubling the average [or median]
Post by Andy Walker
household income, at a time when we can't go on cruises, or on
holidays, or dine out, and there are severe limits on how many
new cars and TVs we need. The government, correctly, sees it
as more important to help people and businesses survive.
More ivory tower incomprehension. Most people do not have savings to last the 12 weeks the government is talking about. Some be savedf the money will be saved by the better off but the vast majority will not. NB even if the better of spend it on non-essentials that still helps the economy. RH
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by RH156RH
You live in an ivory tower. There are huge numbers of people,
perhpahs more than n50% of the population, who live hand to mouth.
There are indeed many such people, but it's nowhere near
half the population, even less is it the "vast majority" that you
claimed. Again, it's more important to help those who have lost
their jobs or their livelihoods than to give £36000pa tax free
that we can't spend to the rest of us.
I refer you to my comments above about how many could fund themselves for the 12 weeks isolation the government are asking for. rH
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
I didn't say it was an easy job just that it would be by far the
simplest way of putting money in people's pockets . rH
But it isn't. It just isn't. You want tens of millions
of people to claim this money by an assortment of routes. It's
a bureaucratic nightmare,
It would be demanding but far preferable administratively than what
is happening. All the civil servants have to do is identify the
person.
I'm amazed that an alleged former civil servant thinks it's
that easy to identify someone. Have you tried [eg] to open a bank
account recently? All that "list A, list B" palaver, which doesn't
even work very well and which many people can't satisfy [though the
fraudsters apparently find it easy to generate multiple identities].
That was in normal times; now imagine the same thing when we can't
go ourselves to the council/DWP/HMRC offices and talk to someone
face to face.
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between easy and complicated.

As I have pointed out already that I have not s aid it is easy merely than mine suggestion is simple in concept and simpler than any other means of maintain the economy. rH

e
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
With the proposed bail out the state has to operate not one
but half a dozen separate ways of getting money directly or
indirectly to people. RH
All of which are minor tweaks to existing schemes.
I notice you coyly fail to say what they "minor tweaks are". RH

Or did
Post by Andy Walker
you suppose that when the Chancellor announces an increase in VAT,
or in pensions, or in the personal allowance, the entire CS is in
lock-down for weeks trying to write new programs to cope? The rest
of us assume, correctly, that there are some parameters in the
existing program which just need changing.
Meanwhile, I remind you that your proposal involved the
marrying of dozens of existing databases not intended to be
combined into one new scheme. If you knew anything at all about
the subject, you would not suppose that that process is simpler
that using those same databases for the purposes for which they
were set up.
The merging of databases is commonplace. rH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Your proposal is unfit for
purposes. Test it over ten years indeed! ROTFL!!!!!! RH
Prepare, test and phase-in, not merely test.
[...] Expedition is what is required not delay.
You seem not to have noticed that "ten years" was for the
introduction of a properly tested UBI scheme. How long it would
take to introduce your scheme, with all its faults [and therefore
all the failings that would particularly afflict those who need
help the most] is anyone's guess, but it is going to be months
rather than the days that the Chancellor's proposals involve,
even if all goes better than might be expected.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
My scheme would be ready to go in months. RH
Andy Walker
2020-03-24 00:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
What trolling? Purely factual descriptions of your limitations... RH
Just stop it. I'd rather engage in an adult discussion; if
that's not what you want, just say so.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
It does not matter what happens to the money
beyond promoting consumption.
You have not given us any hint as to how it promotes
consumption.
SIGH. It promotes consumption because people need money to live.
"Money to live" is not "promoted" consumption, it's a matter
of maintaining current consumption, which is achieved by continuing
to pay salaries even when workers are redundant, continuing current
benefits, improving benefit provision for those who lose their jobs,
and encouraging mortgage/rent/rates/VAT/... holidays. Which is what
the government has been doing. The time for promoting consumption
is not now, but in the recovery phase.
Post by RH156RH
[...] Most people do not have savings to last the 12 weeks the
government is talking about. Some be savedf the money will be
saved by the better off but the vast majority will not. NB even
if the better of spend it on non-essentials that still helps the
economy. RH
No-one is asking "most people" to last for 12 weeks out of
their savings. Benefits, inc pensions, continue; and most workers
will retain most or all of their current pay, even if they are
technically redundant. The government is allegedly thinking about
how to help the self-employed and casual workers. That's a few
million people who need more help; a serious problem, but for
at most 10% of the population, not "most", let alone the "vast
majority" you talked about in a PP. I doubt whether anyone other
than you thinks that just dumping £36Kpa or more onto the average
family is the best way to resolve the situation.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
[...] All the civil servants have to do is identify the
person.
I'm amazed that an alleged former civil servant thinks it's
that easy to identify someone. [...]
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between easy
and complicated.
As I have pointed out already that I have not s aid it is easy
merely than mine suggestion is simple in concept and simpler than any
other means of maintain the economy. rH
Your phrase "All [they] have to do is ..." clearly suggests
that you think it is easy. In detail, it's a lot more difficult,
*and* more complicated, than what the government has proposed, as
can be seen by the speed with which they have been able to initiate
their proposals from scratch.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
With the proposed bail out the state has to operate not one
but half a dozen separate ways of getting money directly or
indirectly to people. RH
All of which are minor tweaks to existing schemes.
I notice you coyly fail to say what they "minor tweaks are". RH
Not only did I not "fail" in this way, I said what they were
in the following two sentences of the PP. You should get into the
habit of reading articles in their entirety before replying to them;
it would save from from many of your most egregious blunders.

[...]
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Meanwhile, I remind you that your proposal involved the
marrying of dozens of existing databases not intended to be
combined into one new scheme. [...]
The merging of databases is commonplace. rH
Yes, it's the sort of thing that happens when one company
takes over another. Occasionally, when the databases are very
similar, it can be done in a few weeks, but it has been known to
take years, and sometimes it is simply impossible, for a variety
of reasons. Civil service and similar databases tend towards the
"impossible" end of the spectrum, not least because of the needs
of data protection.
Post by RH156RH
My scheme would be ready to go in months. RH
So the Chancellor's schemes, worked out in days, worked
through in a couple of weeks, and largely ready to be rolled out,
are "hideously complicated", and won't help the "vast majority"
of the population who can't last 12 weeks; and, instead, your
"simple" scheme will be ready "in months". You don't read what
I write, at least not with any attention; it seems that you now
don't even read what you write.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-24 15:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
What trolling? Purely factual descriptions of your limitations... RH
Just stop it.
But...but...you said it doesn't trouble you...ROTFL! RH

I'd rather engage in an adult discussion; if
Post by Andy Walker
that's not what you want, just say so.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
It does not matter what happens to the money
beyond promoting consumption.
You have not given us any hint as to how it promotes
consumption.
SIGH. It promotes consumption because people need money to live.
"Money to live" is not "promoted" consumption
Dear oh dear. People with bills to pay and things to buy need...guess what...MONEY! RH

, it's a matter
Post by Andy Walker
of maintaining current consumption, which is achieved by continuing
to pay salaries even when workers are redundant, continuing current
benefits, improving benefit provision for those who lose their jobs,
and encouraging mortgage/rent/rates/VAT/... holidays. Which is what
the government has been doing. The time for promoting consumption
is not now, but in the recovery phase.
Translation: the giving of money now allows bills to be paid ...allows people to live... which keeps the economy going...which allows others meet their bills and live and so promotes consumption ... RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
[...] Most people do not have savings to last the 12 weeks the
government is talking about. Some be savedf the money will be
saved by the better off but the vast majority will not. NB even
if the better of spend it on non-essentials that still helps the
economy. RH
No-one is asking "most people" to last for 12 weeks out of
their savings. Benefits, inc pensions, continue;
SIGH These are much less than the money promised by the Government and not enough to live on, eg Statutory sick pay at £94 a week if you have earned enough.


and most workers
Post by Andy Walker
will retain most or all of their current pay, even if they are
technically redundant.
Huge numbers of people are excluded from the government scheme, eg, self employed, those working off the books etc and their dependants . RH

The government is allegedly thinking about
Post by Andy Walker
how to help the self-employed and casual workers. That's a few
million people who need more help; a serious problem, but for
at most 10% of the population, not "most", let alone the "vast
majority" you talked about in a PP. I doubt whether anyone other
than you thinks that just dumping £36Kpa or more onto the average
family is the best way to resolve the situation.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
[...] All the civil servants have to do is identify the
person.
I'm amazed that an alleged former civil servant thinks it's
that easy to identify someone. [...]
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between easy
and complicated.
As I have pointed out already that I have not s aid it is easy
merely than mine suggestion is simple in concept and simpler than any
other means of maintain the economy. rH
Your phrase "All [they] have to do is ..." clearly suggests
that you think it is easy.
oH dear, you are still having
diffulty understanding the difference between simple and easy in this context. rH

In detail, it's a lot more difficult,
Post by Andy Walker
*and* more complicated, than what the government has proposed, as
can be seen by the speed with which they have been able to initiate
their proposals from scratch.
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
With the proposed bail out the state has to operate not one
but half a dozen separate ways of getting money directly or
indirectly to people. RH
All of which are minor tweaks to existing schemes.
I notice you coyly fail to say what they "minor tweaks are". RH
Not only did I not "fail" in this way, I said what they were
in the following two sentences of the PP. You should get into the
habit of reading articles in their entirety before replying to them;
it would save from from many of your most egregious blunders.
Again refuses to explain the "minor tweaks" noted. RH
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Meanwhile, I remind you that your proposal involved the
marrying of dozens of existing databases not intended to be
combined into one new scheme. [...]
The merging of databases is commonplace. rH
Yes, it's the sort of thing that happens when one company
takes over another. Occasionally, when the databases are very
similar, it can be done in a few weeks, but it has been known to
take years, and sometimes it is simply impossible, for a variety
of reasons. Civil service and similar databases tend towards the
"impossible" end of the spectrum, not least because of the needs
of data protection.
Post by RH156RH
My scheme would be ready to go in months. RH
So the Chancellor's schemes, worked out in days, worked
through in a couple of weeks, and largely ready to be rolled out,
are "hideously complicated", and won't help the "vast majority"
of the population who can't last 12 weeks; and, instead, your
"simple" scheme will be ready "in months". You don't read what
I write, at least not with any attention; it seems that you now
don't even read what you write.
A month or two would be requited to prepare the way for giving people their money. Much of it could be done very quickly if the money was given to the employers to allot to their workers.

All the Chancellor has said is what he wants the end result to be. he has said nothing about how he will do this. RH
Andy Walker
2020-03-25 20:03:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
What trolling? Purely factual descriptions of your limitations... RH
Just stop it.
But...but...you said it doesn't trouble you...ROTFL! RH
It doesn't trouble me. In a small child, your behaviour might
be excusable, and perhaps even amusing, at least to other children.
In an elderly person, it's pathetic. It's a shame, as you are capable
of writing intelligently, unlike some of the other egregious trolls.
When you want to hold an adult conversation, let me know.

Meanwhile, every single substantive point in your post has
already been answered. Yes, I did check.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-26 12:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by RH156RH
What trolling? Purely factual descriptions of your limitations... RH
Just stop it.
But...but...you said it doesn't trouble you...ROTFL! RH
It doesn't trouble me. In a small child, your behaviour might
be excusable, and perhaps even amusing, at least to other children.
In an elderly person, it's pathetic. It's a shame, as you are capable
of writing intelligently, unlike some of the other egregious trolls.
When you want to hold an adult conversation, let me know.
Get away with you. You love every minute of it ...RH
Post by Andy Walker
Meanwhile, every single substantive point in your post has
already been answered. Yes, I did check.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
RH156RH
2020-03-21 12:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money. The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay rent etc. It is also to boost consumption. RH
abelard
2020-03-21 12:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 05:24:43 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money. The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay rent etc. It is also to boost consumption. RH
you can't 'boost consumption' when you run out of bog rolls
to consume

your error comes straight out of poorly comprehended keynsianism
via the lse!
it is often associated with the term 'money illusion'
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2020-03-21 13:43:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 05:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE
workers and the self employed which will mean millions of claim
forms to be administered by civil servants. The pressures
produced by the proposals will also leave the new regime open to
fraud because it will simply be impossible to interview everyone
so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to do was
give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop
the government totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is
retired and has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more
government money. The people who need it are those like my youngest
son. He was going to buy a new motorbike, but has decided to keep
his savings just in case his employer lays people off. He would
love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more like him; but
not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay
rent etc. It is also to boost consumption. RH
Consumption of things that aren't being made, or at least are not
getting to retail outlets, where people shouldn't be anyway. Money is
only a medium of exchange, and its utility depends on there being
something to exchange it for.

People are having difficulty in consuming some things, not because they
don't have the money to pay for them, but because they are not being
offered for sale, or the people are forbidden to buy them (e.g. in
pubs and restaurants).

The issue here is about rent-seekers of various kinds (including
central and local government), who require to be paid continuously from
wages that may disappear. No consumption is normally involved.
--
Joe
Keema's Nan
2020-03-21 13:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money. The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay rent etc.
It is also to boost consumption. RH
Consumption of what?

There is no food in the shops; the pubs, restaurants and cinemas/gyms are all
closed.
Ophelia
2020-03-21 16:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money. The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay rent
etc. It is also to boost consumption. RH
Yes! If everyone got that money and just put it into savings ... No, they
need us to spend it and therefore boost consumption!!

If that doesn't happen we will enter a drastic recession!
abelard
2020-03-21 17:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ophelia
Post by RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money.
The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay rent
etc. It is also to boost consumption. RH
Yes! If everyone got that money and just put it into savings ... No, they
need us to spend it and therefore boost consumption!!
If that doesn't happen we will enter a drastic recession!
not so....you wouldn't

though i am waiting to see which of you work out
the real outcome

how would you define 'recession
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-03-21 17:45:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Ophelia
Post by RH156RH
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
...Chancellor Rishi Sunak has devised a system to support PAYE workers and
the self employed which will mean millions of claim forms to be administered
by civil servants. The pressures produced by the proposals will also leave
the new regime open to fraud because it will simply be impossible to
interview everyone so claims will just be passed on the nod.Al Sunak had to
do was give every adult in Britain say, £1500 a month with extra for
children. That would have been as simple as any scheme to stop the government
totally wrecking our economy. RH
But, I don’t want £1500 extra a month (honest).
I am retired with an occupational and state pension. My wife is retired and
has a similar pension income. We don’t need any more government money. The
people who need it are those like my youngest son. He was going to buy a new
motorbike, but has decided to keep his savings just in case his employer lays
people off. He would love £1500 extra a month, as would many millions more
like him; but not everyone.
You miss the point. The money is not simply to preserve jobs, pay rent
etc. It is also to boost consumption. RH
Yes! If everyone got that money and just put it into savings ... No, they
need us to spend it and therefore boost consumption!!
If that doesn't happen we will enter a drastic recession!
not so....you wouldn't
though i am waiting to see which of you work out
the real outcome
Oh, go on, Grasshopper, do tell us.
Post by abelard
how would you define 'recession
Why don't you?

BTW, have worked out where the money-supply comes from yet?

If you have, go and tell Nugent and Rowing because they're as clueless
as you are.
Loading...