To give a homeless man a meal deal rather than the money?

[TheSeventhHorcrux]

There is a homeless man sat outside the Tesco Express with a little cup asking for money. Instead of giving him
Money I went inside and bought him a meal deal (crisps, ham sandwich and drink) and gave that to him. He was very polite and grateful about it and I thought nothing more of it until my friend then later accused me of being patronising by presenting him with food rather than te money.
When I lived in South Aftica I would often give food rather than money as in many cases the money went on drinks and drugs etc.
Am I being unreasonable to "control" the expenditure of this man (as put by friend) and not just give him money. I'm quite concerned now that he would have been offended, as my friend certainly thinks so!

You've got 2 years, think you can get a party together?

Yes, I am not sure how well served business and industry are at the moment. Credit is difficult, red tape is extraordinarily constraining, the whole taxation system seems unsupportive except to the largest companies, and planning laws apparently emphasise the wrong things entirely. I am amazed any of us make any money at all.

I don't think there's a problem with it. When i was at school my friend and i used to go shopping and there was a guy we used to go and buy him a butty and a coffee, and then get his dog a massive tin of food and a big bag of chews for his teeth from the poundshop near enough every week.

Set me up a Facebook page and start fundraising then Isn't that how Obama did it?

Actually I am a fairly rubbish politician in RL, as I can't be arsed with being polite to wankers, but I do understand a) people and b) how to analyse policy.

I tell you what though, the problem is not with our politicians, it is with the Civil Service who are no longer Civil or indeed serve.

I'm not saying rich people should be forced to pay anything be if higher taxes or enforced charitable giving etc.
It is just shocking to me that they seem so blithely unaware of the desperate poverty right under their noses which they could do so much to help.

And yes, the wealthy do directly pay my wages, that doesn't make their lifestyle any more palatable.

Being polite to wankers is how you get in the game, Boffin!

I'll start making the t-shirts, who wants to be on banner-duty?

What would your housing policy be, Boffin ?

Abolish the 1991 banding for Council Tax and introduce a new system based on usable floor space, divided by the number of occupants. Surplus space attracts the highest taxation. Second homes to be automatically taxed at the highest rate.

Incentivise Local Authorities to keep precise, real time records of housing need.

Introduce a national database of unoccupied/underoccupied housing and monitor this annually.

Provide finance for Local Authorities to build to meet housing need near workplaces and transport infrastructure, and to develop further sustainable infrastructure.

I'm not sure about the council tax = space one but the rest sound good to me

The problem is, and I think the last ten years have shown, throwing money at a problem does not solve a problem. If - and it is an if, I am aware not all homeless people fall into the category of being drug addicts or alcoholics - someone is on the streets due to an alcohol problem, no amount of money, or food for that matter will really help. The only thing that will make a difference is them not being an alcoholic. Money won't help there.

It boils down to choice - you chose for the homeless man you saw by buying him food. That was nice. Other people feel the money should have been his so he could have made that choice himself; or chose not to give at all, and I think all those choices are perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure how old you are Seventh (and I honestly don't intend that to sound in any way patronising) but when I was in my teens/early twenties, I was passionate about a fairer society and one which was equal. I have now come to realise, quite sadly in a way, that once you start taking people's wealth away from them you remove the incentive for acquring that wealth in the first place. I was watching Growing up Poor the other night and felt quite sad, as all the girls featured on it had a roof over their heads and some form of income through state benefits which I didn't have at that age. Although I'm a very caring person and obviously didn't wish the girls any ill will, I did roll my eyes a bit and disliked myself for doing so.

If we look at your example of buying a necklace for a large amount of money - that could, in your eyes, be presumably shared amongst the people living on the streets or whatever, thinking cynically we could all do that. I COULD sell my house and give the proceeds to charity and live in a single rented room, I COULD only ever buy clothes from charity shops and save what I would spend in Monsoon, Topshop, Karen Millen, and donate to charity, I COULD get rid of my iPhone and only have a basic model. We could all cut right back, but we don't. Money ultimately buys you things, experiences and security. In this country, the system at the moment is that if you earn a lot, you give a lot, if you earn little, you are given a lot (in general terms, you understand.) It's as fair as it can be without it ultimately being a communist state.

Also:

Increase tax free allowances for people renting out rooms in their homes.
Provide key worker housing on site at hospitals, schools, etc.
Increase shorthold assured tenancies to a minimum of 12 months.

Some people spend their cash on holidays, clothes, meals and flash cars.

Others scrimp on those and put it into a lovely house.

Why should the latter be punished by paying even more council tax?

I agree with Skittish - I have a three bedroomed property and although I do hope to have children in the near future, hence buying it, at the moment it is just me! It's hardly a mansion either, it's just an ordinary terrace!

They still can, but the relationship between the space you need and the space you want will be more clearly defined and priced more realistically. At the moment many people in band G are paying an unrealistically low amount of money, given the impact that their choices have on their communities. In other words, it needs to be less desirable to 'hoard' space, and renting it out to others needs to become incentivised instead. If people choose not to do that, and pay more into the pot instead, that is up to them.

Remember it's floor space, not the number of rooms that will count. So small terraced houses will be cheap to live in, and large detached 5+ bedroomed homes will become more expensive. Small flats may end up being a lot cheaper to live in than they are now.

I'd rather like a 5 bedroomed detached house in the future though Boffin! Seriously - home is the important thing to me, where I put my money in (largely due to the experiences I described in this thread.) I've got an old banger of a car that everyone mocks but I don't care, I'm not a car person, and I actually DO shop at charity shops sometimes.

I do see your point though and agree with your other policies so I'd vote for you

So under boffins plan 3 solicitors sharing a flat would be paying far less council tax than one woman in a 2 bed house. How could that possibly be fair? In fact I will never understand how the amount you pay for local services has anything to do with the property you choose to buy. The lib dems local income tax seems to the fairest method IMO.

I think it's about sharing out the housing we have a bit more intelligently, and making people less reliable on it as a personal pension pot.

It would be possible to have your 5+ bedroomed house for a comparatively low charge if you had a couple of tenants, for example, or if extended family were living with you. If you wanted a couple of spare bedrooms just for the hell of it, or you wanted a TV room/gym/dressing room/art gallery/flower arranging room or whatever, then you might find it got very expensive very fast.

But Boffin (and I am honestly not trying to be awkward) I don't have extended family, and yes having tenants is a possibility but one that brings so many difficulties of it with it that (to me) it wouldn't be worth doing. It isn't about having a TV room, but about wanting a home I love. I'd certainly hope that by the time my DC reached secondary school age I would be in a position to buy a big house with a big garden for their and my future.

Domino, I am actually thinking of making property less connected to income and what people can afford to pay, and related more closely to what people actually need.

It's like the bedroom tax proposed for those on benefits, but across the board instead. I wouldn't want it to be as punitive, but I do think if a family of 4 is occupying a massive amount of housing stock for no obvious reason other than they like being spread out a bit, then we have to ask whether this is appropriate when other people are tearing their hair out trying to find homes.

I am not saying people can't do it, I am just saying we should recognise the value of the space they are using a lot more intelligently than just putting them on Band G and charging them a relatively small multiple of Band D, when realistically it should probably be a lot bigger.

But if you had, say, two children, then you would be entitled to a certain amount of space along the lines of a 4-bed house and you might well end up paying less than you do at the moment.

Finances and my age mean I would be highly unlikely to be able to afford more than one chld unfortunately, so there would only be two of us in my dream house!

Seventh

Can I ask if you know for sure they dont donate to charity in some form. People with that sort of wealth often attend fund rasiers adn dinners and support things.

OP: I think its really sweet you gave anything at all - if I was homeless though I would def prefer the money.

Last time I gave to a homeless person it was a sleeping bag and an old pillow and a big bar of chocolate. I had just washed and dried them I will hasten to add and I was going to drop them in the charity shop in the morning, he appeared opposite our house and he looked cold so I gave then to him instead, he got the chocolate because I'd just come out of the shop with 2 bars so I shared. Was that wrong? Maybe, but you can't go through life constantly rehashing every event, ooh! Did I offend them.. etc You were trying to be helpful and kind OP, you were, stop worrying about your friend.