politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is crunch time tonight for Mike Bloomberg as he faces his f
Comments
-
Bernie is probably going to win in most states in the north-east and west and Bloomberg in the south and mid-west.0
-
No, but as awful as Corbyn would be he isn't Stalin, so I'm not sure what point you think you are making by being so bloody silly. My point was that competency in general even with the same policies would be more beneficial for Labour than mirroring the incompetence of Corbyn along with his policies. I didn't comment on whether those policies were any good. Quite why that was taken as endorsing Corbyn, or equatable to Stalin, I have no idea.MarqueeMark said:
You think "The Gulags - but more competently" would be a way to sell a new and improved Stalinism?kle4 said:
Not to my knowledge. But even 'the same thing, but more competently' would be something.Philip_Thompson said:
Alternatively another indication Starmer may be a continuity Corbyn candidate afterall.rottenborough said:Sense outbreak in Labour continues. This is getting quite dizzying...
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1230182334479192065
Have we seen any indication of Starmer rejecting and denouncing Corbyn or Corbynism yet?
Or rather I do have an idea why people would pretend to believe that. Unfortunately.0 -
Yes, it was quite obviously so.isam said:
Really?! Don’t fall for that old claptrapTheScreamingEagles said:
Hang on, I've been repeatedly reassured on here by a lot of PB Leavers that Brexit was nothing to do with immigration.MarqueeMark said:There seem to be an awful lot of opposition politicians who have only just woken up today to what the Brexit vote means.....
Now we get to see if the policy of only allowing admission to people of intelligence* and income into Britain to our higher status jobs to rule over the unskilled Britons is a successful one as far as the depressed old coalfields and coastal towns are concerned.
* as approved by the Eugenics team at number 10.0 -
Precisely. He's even musing (oh the mock horror) that in this weird dystopian future that we'd still have an NHS.Richard_Nabavi said:Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion by others.
0 -
Labour leadership race.MarqueeMark said:
Which is the most important topic today:TOPPING said:
I am so glad you are not still banging on in post after post after post. After post. About Coronavirus.
1. The Labour leadership election
2. The Democratic Party primaries
3. The impact of coronavirus on
a ) the Chinese Communist Party
b ) The world economy
c ) London house prices
d ) airport literature (I mean, nobody's flying = nobody's buying!!! C'mon....)
4. More fucking rain
5. Liverpool FC and their fucking reign?0 -
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.2
-
0
-
Add in public sector types on defined benefits.Benpointer said:
I agree about Cummings. Not sure that pension tax relief will be much more than a minority interest though. Not bothered about it will be:TGOHF666 said:The voters don’t care about Cummings - utter bubble story.
Pension tax relief however is Brexit level voter annoyance.
- all those already retired
- all those not in employment
- all those making no or next to no pension contributions
I reckon that adds up to a large majority of the country.
PS I am not saying discouraging citizens from saving for their retirement is a good thing though, far from it.
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
Boris will rue the day.0 -
Yep, they've spun his own words. Never seen that done by any paper before.Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion by others.Benpointer said:
Which they support with this Cummings quote (my bold):Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
"Once we identify a substantial number of IQ genes, there is no obvious reason why rich people will not select the egg that has the highest prediction for IQ. This clearly raises many big questions. If the poor cannot do the same, then the rich could quickly embed advantages and society could become not only more unequal but also based on biological classes. One response is that if this sort of thing does become possible, then a national health system should fund everybody to do this."0 -
0
-
Let's see what the actual budget proposals are shall we?TGOHF666 said:
Add in public sector types on defined benefits.Benpointer said:
I agree about Cummings. Not sure that pension tax relief will be much more than a minority interest though. Not bothered about it will be:TGOHF666 said:The voters don’t care about Cummings - utter bubble story.
Pension tax relief however is Brexit level voter annoyance.
- all those already retired
- all those not in employment
- all those making no or next to no pension contributions
I reckon that adds up to a large majority of the country.
PS I am not saying discouraging citizens from saving for their retirement is a good thing though, far from it.
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
Boris will rue the day.0 -
Given his apparent hatred for institutions and institutional ways of doing things, its surely not merely modern Britain.Foxy said:
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.TheGreenMachine said:
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?Foxy said:
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
Not that a shake up, a deep one, is not necessary sometimes and unlikely to be done without unhappy disruption, but the man does come across as a bit student politics, all usually basic ideas dressed up to be profound. He's at least got some wins under his belt.0 -
But I thought the plan was to sell the NHS to Trump ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion.Benpointer said:
Which they support with this Cummings quote (my bold):Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
"Once we identify a substantial number of IQ genes, there is no obvious reason why rich people will not select the egg that has the highest prediction for IQ. This clearly raises many big questions. If the poor cannot do the same, then the rich could quickly embed advantages and society could become not only more unequal but also based on biological classes. One response is that if this sort of thing does become possible, then a national health system should fund everybody to do this."0 -
Sacking enemies and rivals is easy, it is sacking allies and friends that takes effort.TheGreenMachine said:
Boris wasn't lazy last week, sacking all round him.Foxy said:
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.TheGreenMachine said:
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?Foxy said:
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
I thought Dom was the back bone of the government.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.0 -
isam said:
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!0 -
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
I think there is a tin ear floating this - potential to be a massive game changer.Benpointer said:
Let's see what the actual budget proposals are shall we?TGOHF666 said:
Add in public sector types on defined benefits.Benpointer said:
I agree about Cummings. Not sure that pension tax relief will be much more than a minority interest though. Not bothered about it will be:TGOHF666 said:The voters don’t care about Cummings - utter bubble story.
Pension tax relief however is Brexit level voter annoyance.
- all those already retired
- all those not in employment
- all those making no or next to no pension contributions
I reckon that adds up to a large majority of the country.
PS I am not saying discouraging citizens from saving for their retirement is a good thing though, far from it.
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
Boris will rue the day.0 -
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted.eadric said:
What is fascinating is how much the Guardian HATES Cummings. And fears him.Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion.Benpointer said:
Which they suppohealth system should fund everybody to do this."Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Their pursuit of him is obsessive. This is not a front page headline in any normal paper, but they have put it at the top.0 -
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
It just seems so unnecessary to lie when there's real things to utilise, but I guess it is Trump's america right now, they all know what works.rottenborough said:0 -
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
0 -
The growing imperative to fork out £25 on Wilder/Fury.MarqueeMark said:
Which is the most important topic today:TOPPING said:
I am so glad you are not still banging on in post after post after post. After post. About Coronavirus.
1. The Labour leadership election
2. The Democratic Party primaries
3. The impact of coronavirus on
a ) the Chinese Communist Party
b ) The world economy
c ) London house prices
d ) airport literature (I mean, nobody's flying = nobody's buying!!! C'mon....)
4. More fucking rain
5. Liverpool FC and their fucking reign?0 -
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
Nice margin for the owners I guess. Now it might not be quite as lucrativeBenpointer said:isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!0 -
Kinda depends which ones - and about whom.TheGreenMachine said:@MarqueeMark
Are you allowed to use swear words on here?
Be careful, you might get a ban, lol.
HINT: every naughty word - however mild - if aimed at those who monitor this site, will result in the ban hammer dropping......0 -
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?Tim_B said:
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.0 -
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.0 -
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
Is Cummings allowed to run for PM?Foxy said:
Sacking enemies and rivals is easy, it is sacking allies and friends that takes effort.TheGreenMachine said:
Boris wasn't lazy last week, sacking all round him.Foxy said:
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.TheGreenMachine said:
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?Foxy said:
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
I thought Dom was the back bone of the government.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.0 -
Feeling better now?rpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.alterego said:
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/959234/care-home-crisis-uk-government-elderly-care-bankruptcy0 -
Yes, I thought that as I wrote it. Sorryrpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.0 -
What about the dog?rpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
I don't think he is even a member of the Conservative party.TheGreenMachine said:
Is Cummings allowed to run for PM?Foxy said:
Sacking enemies and rivals is easy, it is sacking allies and friends that takes effort.TheGreenMachine said:
Boris wasn't lazy last week, sacking all round him.Foxy said:
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.TheGreenMachine said:
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?Foxy said:
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
I thought Dom was the back bone of the government.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.0 -
0
-
Plus at least the same again for holidays/time off/etc.Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Then again I haven't got my spreadsheet out to guesstimate it. Has @isam?0 -
Wow that's some patient/ carer ratio. Not much change out of a grand to fund wages alone. 🤔Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.0 -
During my 10 years at boarding school (in Yorkshire) walking around with your hands in your pockets was severely frowned upon. I've just realized whyBenpointer said:
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?Tim_B said:
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms. 0 -
Nope, it's Visa Debit:rpjs said:
VISA is a brand of credit/debit card.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Debit0 -
Yep. I have backed Wilder because it boils down to Fury not being able to avoid at least one bomb for 36 mins.TheGreenMachine said:@TOPPING
My head says Denotay Wilder but my heart says Tyson Fury.
Are you in a similar situation?0 -
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.eadric said:Benpointer:
****
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
I can't prove it, it just is.0 -
Yep, no politician ever lied before Trump. True fact.kle4 said:
It just seems so unnecessary to lie when there's real things to utilise, but I guess it is Trump's america right now, they all know what works.rottenborough said:0 -
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
0 -
Visa Debitisam said:
Yes, I thought that as I wrote it. Sorryrpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Visa Electron0 -
Who would you say is stingier between the Scots and the Welsh?Benpointer said:
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?Tim_B said:
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.0 -
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?Benpointer said:
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.eadric said:Benpointer:
****
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
I can't prove it, it just is.1 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Inc.Benpointer said:
Feeling better now?rpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
Yes... but for everything else there's MastercardSunil_Prasannan said:
Visa Debitisam said:
Yes, I thought that as I wrote it. Sorryrpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Visa Electron 1 -
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.0 -
I would suggest that it may have something to do with incompetence or worse (e.g. Southern Cross)Foxy said:
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.alterego said:
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/959234/care-home-crisis-uk-government-elderly-care-bankruptcy0 -
Barclays had Barclaycard - a VISA branded credit card - back in the 1960s. It started as a Bank of America spinoffSunil_Prasannan said:
Nope, it's Visa Debit:rpjs said:
VISA is a brand of credit/debit card.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Debit0 -
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?0 -
One of the biggest mysteries is why care homes are usually so expensive when the people who work in them are so badly paid.0
-
In European terms , he is a Social Democrat.rcs1000 said:
And there you have Sanders... ummm... problem.Tim_B said:oddball poll taken Feb 14-17 by Wall St Journal/NBC News...
Most unpopular qualities for a presidential candidate>>>
Socialist 67%
Heart attack in past year 57%
75+ years old 53%
Self-funder 41%
Under 40 40%
You see, he is a socialist.0 -
Who he?TOPPING said:
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?Benpointer said:
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.eadric said:Benpointer:
****
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
I can't prove it, it just is.0 -
Usually as in anyone time? No.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?1 -
Next but two supreme leader of DPRK.Benpointer said:
Who he?TOPPING said:
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?Benpointer said:
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.eadric said:Benpointer:
****
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
I can't prove it, it just is.1 -
-
Neither: I never descend to lazy national or regional stereotypes (apart from Yorkshiremen obvs.)TheGreenMachine said:
Who would you say is stingier between the Scots and the Welsh?Benpointer said:
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?Tim_B said:
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.0 -
Ah, Kim Ka Dash YanTOPPING said:
Next but two supreme leader of DPRK.Benpointer said:
Who he?TOPPING said:
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?Benpointer said:
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.eadric said:Benpointer:
****
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
I can't prove it, it just is.1 -
Easier but riskier.alterego said:
Surely training dogs would be easier,Benpointer said:
I'm gonna design and patent an automatic arse-wiper.Barnesian said:
How does that work in care homes?Philip_Thompson said:
There is never a requirement to import staff to fill vacancies (besides skills shortages etc which will still happen).rottenborough said:
If there are more vacancies than staff available for unskilled jobs then the solution is not to bring in more staff. Its for the free market to resolve it. Wages will go up for unskilled staff until the least competitive employers go out of business or switch to automation.
A 22-year-old man left in a coma after his genitals were "ripped off and eaten" by a bulldog had apparently smeared his crotch in peanut butter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-genitals-ripped-eaten-135209100 -
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?0 -
"Beijing has ordered three journalists working for the Wall Street Journal to leave the country after the newspaper published a “racist” article about the coronavirus outbreak that “maliciously attacks China”"
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/china-expels-journalists-for-racist-article-w9x0ml7dd0 -
They only work when no capital is needed to buy the property. Which means you don’t get new ones...Foxy said:
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.alterego said:
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/959234/care-home-crisis-uk-government-elderly-care-bankruptcy0 -
The fact that so many are in decrepit old mansions can't help with running costs.northernpowerhouse2 said:
They only work when no capital is needed to buy the property. Which means you don’t get new ones...Foxy said:
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.alterego said:
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/959234/care-home-crisis-uk-government-elderly-care-bankruptcy1 -
Well, upon googling, the ratio seems to be worse than one member of staff per five residents rather than the five per one that you mentionPhilip_Thompson said:
Usually as in anyone time? No.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?0 -
This is one of those situations where we need someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about, care homes-wise. An expert, perhaps.
I will come back in the morning to see if one has appeared.1 -
About 50% of care home income goes on wages. A lot can go on interest payments.Foxy said:
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.alterego said:
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/959234/care-home-crisis-uk-government-elderly-care-bankruptcy
A common business model with regular long term income like care homes or utilities is to borrow a large amount of debt and then pay a large special dividend to shareholders. This can often more than cover the cost of acquiring the company in the first place.
The resulting high interest payments are then covered by the regular income. However if there is pressure on margins (minimum wage, cash strapped local authorities etc ) then the company can go under.
The shareholders are OK because they've more than got their money back from the special dividend, and the taxpayer picks up the cost of looking after the elderly residents who can't be simply kicked out on the street.0 -
I think this kind of behaviour is frowned on in most care homes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Easier but riskier.alterego said:
Surely training dogs would be easier,Benpointer said:
I'm gonna design and patent an automatic arse-wiper.Barnesian said:
How does that work in care homes?Philip_Thompson said:
There is never a requirement to import staff to fill vacancies (besides skills shortages etc which will still happen).rottenborough said:
If there are more vacancies than staff available for unskilled jobs then the solution is not to bring in more staff. Its for the free market to resolve it. Wages will go up for unskilled staff until the least competitive employers go out of business or switch to automation.
A 22-year-old man left in a coma after his genitals were "ripped off and eaten" by a bulldog had apparently smeared his crotch in peanut butter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-genitals-ripped-eaten-135209100 -
To be fair, I've only ever known one Yorkshire man and he was stingy.Benpointer said:
Neither: I never descend to lazy national or regional stereotypes (apart from Yorkshiremen obvs.)TheGreenMachine said:
Who would you say is stingier between the Scots and the Welsh?Benpointer said:
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?Tim_B said:
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.Richard_Nabavi said:
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".Benpointer said:
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.Benpointer said:
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...Richard_Nabavi said:
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.Benpointer said:
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?Benpointer said:
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.Richard_Nabavi said:While we wait: I'm not exactly a fan of Dominic Cummings, but the Guardian has surpassed itself in the dishonesty of this top-headline smear piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/19/sabisky-row-dominic-cummings-criticised-over-designer-babies-post
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.0 -
Bloody hell - if we had to wait for an expert on every discussion we'd never say anything!TOPPING said:This is one of those situations where we need someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about, care homes-wise. An expert, perhaps.
I will come back in the morning to see if one has appeared.0 -
Which won't cost the care home £17k. Don't forget taxes like Employers National Insurance etcBenpointer said:
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
National Minimum (Living) Wage, 40 hours per week, costs a company close to £21k per employee - make that 24/7 and including statutory payments etc and you're upto £100k just paying minimum wage to have just a single person working 24/7 . . . throw in VAT on top of that and you're up to over £120k for just a single person working by themselves.0 -
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?0 -
More like 16 hr a week staff so to keep Employer NI lowBenpointer said:
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
0 -
Yes, all valid points. The question then moves to how many residents can that £120k 24/7 virtual staff member look after?Philip_Thompson said:
Which won't cost the care home £17k. Don't forget taxes like Employers National Insurance etcBenpointer said:
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
National Minimum (Living) Wage, 40 hours per week, costs a company close to £21k per employee - make that 24/7 and including statutory payments etc and you're upto £100k just paying minimum wage to have just a single person working 24/7 . . . throw in VAT on top of that and you're up to over £120k for just a single person working by themselves.
I am beginning to see why running a care home might not be a gold mine.0 -
“Others enjoy the privacy that paying in cash permits.”rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but BITCOINAndy_JS said:"The downsides of a cashless society cannot be ignored
TELEGRAPH VIEW"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/02/18/downsides-cashless-society-cannot-ignored/
Translated: “how the hell am I going to spend my undeclared income”0 -
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.isam said:
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?0 -
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.Benpointer said:
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Here is the detail:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1230281161907240960
0 -
Our dog goes into the local care home as a registered Pets As Therapy PAT Dog (foc, I should add).alterego said:
I think this kind of behaviour is frowned on in most care homes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Easier but riskier.alterego said:
Surely training dogs would be easier,Benpointer said:
I'm gonna design and patent an automatic arse-wiper.Barnesian said:
How does that work in care homes?Philip_Thompson said:
There is never a requirement to import staff to fill vacancies (besides skills shortages etc which will still happen).rottenborough said:
If there are more vacancies than staff available for unskilled jobs then the solution is not to bring in more staff. Its for the free market to resolve it. Wages will go up for unskilled staff until the least competitive employers go out of business or switch to automation.
A 22-year-old man left in a coma after his genitals were "ripped off and eaten" by a bulldog had apparently smeared his crotch in peanut butter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-genitals-ripped-eaten-13520910
Fortunately he's a fussy eater and under supervision at all times.0 -
I think there are different levels of care and different levels of costs and charges so it is difficult to talk in generalities. Having seen both ends of caring (obviously not on any basis that could be relied upon as being representative), I believe the industry leaves quite a bit to be desired.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?0 -
As a further point, Councils pay amounts that are about a third less than self-funders. See various Parliamentary Reports.
(Sorry - lost the £1000 per week for care home quote in the previous comment. Not sure who it was from, but the claim is massively exaggerated.)0 -
Of course it’s ‘full board’ food as well.Philip_Thompson said:
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.isam said:
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?0 -
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365Philip_Thompson said:
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.isam said:
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
0 -
-
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.MattW said:
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.Benpointer said:
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Here is the detail:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1230281161907240960
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.0 -
The one near meMattW said:
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.Benpointer said:
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Here is the detail:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1230281161907240960
https://www.signature-care-homes.co.uk/price/signature-the-beeches-brentwood-care-home-prices
0 -
I though Obama was a DINO, basically indistinguishable from a Republican.HYUFD said:0 -
Visa in Latin is plural, so you mean 'from the Latin "which have to bee seen"'.rpjs said:
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
0 -
Not everyone is 24/7 - though cooks and cleaners are required 7 days a week even if not 24/7 - but I'm estimating overall the 24/7 staff and simply 7 days a week staff etc will sum up to about a 1:1 average.isam said:
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365Philip_Thompson said:
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.isam said:
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
If the residents pay a grand per week then instantly nearly 9k of that is VAT and going straight to HMRC not the care home
So now you're down to just 18k a year per resident to cover the cost of the building, food, drinks, electricity, gas and everything else.0 -
0
-
Ummm: if care assistants work eight hour shifts, five days a week, that means they work 40 hours out of 168. Now, you need fewer people at night. But even so, once you add:isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
- food
- rent
- maintenance
- etc.
Then you can see how it easily adds up. Looking after the old and the infirm is labour intensive. Hence how many of these care homes end up going bust.0 -
Ah. You made the point much better than I did.Philip_Thompson said:
Usually as in anyone time? No.isam said:
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....Philip_Thompson said:
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?0 -
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.MattW said:
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.Benpointer said:
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Here is the detail:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1230281161907240960
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people are charged I think. But the report with all the detail is a couple of hundred. See
https://www.payingforcare.org/how-much-does-care-cost/
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Similarly if I order diabetic medical supplies, I do not pay VAT - which helps with the £50 a fortnight for a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor supply.0 -
Fair point. But still, are they exempt from NNDR, food, drinks, building costs, gas, electricity etc?MattW said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.MattW said:
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.Benpointer said:
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Here is the detail:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1230281161907240960
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people pay.
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.0 -
Well we are guessing the ratio which really renders the discussion futile. I would be astonished if it’s 1 member of staff per 2 residents. This place had 5 staff a day for 33 residentsPhilip_Thompson said:
Not everyone is 24/7 - though cooks and cleaners are required 7 days a week even if not 24/7 - but I'm estimating overall the 24/7 staff and simply 7 days a week staff etc will sum up to about a 1:1 average.isam said:
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365Philip_Thompson said:
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.isam said:
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
If the residents pay a grand per week then instantly nearly 9k of that is VAT and going straight to HMRC not the care home
So now you're down to just 18k a year per resident to cover the cost of the building, food, drinks, electricity, gas and everything else.
http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/m736194-Care-Home-Staff-to-client-ratio
Have a google yourself, I’d say 1:1 would be like staying at the Ritz
0 -
Why do you think that care homes have been such terrible businesses then?isam said:
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365Philip_Thompson said:
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.isam said:
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?isam said:
Based on 4 carers per resident?Philip_Thompson said:
How do you figure that out?isam said:
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alrightRichard_Nabavi said:
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.isam said:It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
What do you think the typical answers are?
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.0
