Iuchi_Zien Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 so are you upset that they might have paid into a system they couldnt have taken advantage off ? Have I said any such thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 EU workers on a low wage answering the phone in the UK instead of answering the phone in Poland would be a greater burden. Both do the job we want them to do but the one that comes here is a greater burden on public services. The polish worker that as a family to support also sends most of the disposable income home so it would be better for both them and us if they do the job in their country. The British worker already lives here so is already a burden if they don't contribute. Where is the evidence to back up this assertion? Where is the evidence that employing, for example Polish, or whatever EU worker you wish to chose is cheaper in the home country then employing them in a UK call centre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Wouldn't want to libel anyone Tone, but does it not strike you that there may be a conflict of interest? Like the comment at the bottom of the article says: "The council’s deputy leader, Lib Dem Paul Tilsley who is a board member of Service Birmingham, the council’s joint venture with Capita" This is a conflict of interest, he is being payed by the people of Birmingham to look after their interest and is being payed as a board member of Service to increase their profits. Capita is the UK's leading outsourcing company,where is their commitment to Birmingham jobs ?. This story stinks, greed over everything and everybody. Don't worry, I don't think that you are libelling anyone since you have asked a question that you simply didn't understand. evildrneil explains it perfectly; It appears that Service Birmingham is a joint venture between the council and Capita specifically set up to look after the ICT services to Birmingham council as such surely it's perfectly reasonable to have at least one council member on the board to represent the needs of the council in the operations of the organisation? So there you go, it doesn't stink at all. What would stink would be if the elected representative was being paid by a company where they were only there to excercise their incfluence in the chamber to attract public sector business to the company since they had no other obvious talent that would be of interest to the company. An example of something that might "stink" as you eloquently put it would be say if Richard Caborn MP was a member of the government and a former minister and was being paid handsomely by AMEC's nuclear construction business and subsequent Freedom of information requests for information relating to it were turned down. Some might raise an eyebrow at the latter, but the former is just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Have I said any such thing? you said this "Don't agree. They are paying taxes for services they will never use. If they are migrants intending to return home they are paying into a pension pot they will not be able to take advantage of" im trying to get me head around what you mean by it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 you said this "Don't agree. They are paying taxes for services they will never use. If they are migrants intending to return home they are paying into a pension pot they will not be able to take advantage of" im trying to get me head around what you mean by it ? Clarification-: The cost of providing extra services, infrastructure and accommodation to accommodate someone coming here to work is greater than the financial contribution they would make to the economy. I don't agree If I go to work in Poland or Russia my taxes pay into a pension 'pot' I am not likely to be able to take advantage of. I don't see that as a problem. Legal migrant workers pay the same taxes as we do and therefore pay for a lot of services they would not be entitled to, or would be entitled under a reciprocal arangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Clarification-: If I go to work in Poland or Russia my taxes pay into a pension 'pot' I am not likely to be able to take advantage of. I don't see that as a problem. Legal migrant workers pay the same taxes as we do and therefore pay for a lot of services they would not be entitled to, or would be entitled under a reciprocal arangement. what services would they not be entitled to if they were paying tax in this country ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.