999tigger Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 It's to do with the type of people now living here, in increasing numbers and the future levels of immigrations I'm concerned about. What type of people? You talk about the colour of peoples skin a lot, then you talk about religion. Would it be ok for white Irish people to come here? You dont wnat any immigration at all from the 3 sources, EU, non EU and refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickyM Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 What type of people? You talk about the colour of peoples skin a lot, then you talk about religion. Would it be ok for white Irish people to come here? You dont wnat any immigration at all from the 3 sources, EU, non EU and refugees.[/QUOTE] I don't want any foreigners coming here. We've got far too many and it's ruined our country. Why don't they stay in their own countries and work and pay taxes there? I don't want them here and lots of my fellow Britons don't. This is a democracy and my opinion isn't wrong - just different to yours and the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 David Cameron mentioned today that 40% of new EU arrivals over the last 4 years claim working tax credits at an average £6,000 each. Considering around 600,000 people from the EU have arrived in that time, 40% of them is c240,000, which totals around £1.44bn. Staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 David Cameron mentioned today that 40% of new EU arrivals over the last 4 years claim working tax credits at an average £6,000 each. Considering around 600,000 people from the EU have arrived in that time, 40% of them is c240,000, which totals around £1.44bn. Staggering. Well you can read the UCL research study and then assess their contribution in taxes during that period. The claim is £6,000 per family, not each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickyM Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 David Cameron mentioned today that 40% of new EU arrivals over the last 4 years claim working tax credits at an average £6,000 each. Considering around 600,000 people from the EU have arrived in that time, 40% of them is c240,000, which totals around £1.44bn. Staggering. It's not an amount to turn your nose at. I suspect some people on here will deny it and claim they benefit the UK........but most know the associated costs aren't included. Costs like crime, language translators, GP consultations, benefit overpayments and housing benefit payments to private landlords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Well you can read the UCL research study and then assess their contribution in taxes during that period. The claim is £6,000 per family, not each. The point is, they shouldn't be getting any. If 40% need to claim tax credits, that's the 40% we can do without. If you can't afford to move to the UK - don't. I never voted to hand my hard earned taxes over to European immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickyM Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Well you can read the UCL research study and then assess their contribution in taxes during that period. The claim is £6,000 per family, not each. The UCL reports on immigration were so widely criticised that even the BBC avoided using them!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) my bold= What about th rich immigrants then? Not all immigrants are poor and claiming benefits you know. What about them? Most people only object to the many wealth drainers that offset the benefits of the wealth generators. Is it not a unquestionable truth that if you didn't let in the negative contributors then the contribution of immigrants as a cohort would go up significantly? This is what's fundamentally wrong with the current immigration policy forced on us by the EU i.e. we are forced to take immigrants as a 'job lot'. A smarter immigration policy would be selective in order to maximising the benefits and minimising the negatives.It would make us financial and socially stronger... why the hell would anyone object (other than migrants rejected)? What is it people are denying? I'm basing it on the UCL analysis and the study called the Fiscal Effects of Immigration, which was publsihed by the Royal Economics Society in the Economic Journal 2014. Zamo did point out a potential flaw, but then looking at the methodology the cost of services was taken into account and they explain how they did it. Are we only liable to contribute to the NHS when we are actually using it? Is it only those who receive social services that benefit from the work they do or are there benefits for society as a whole? Do we not benefit from the legal system, police and prisons even though most people do not directly contribute to the cost? Do we not all benefit from the borrowing that keeps taxes down and/or stops public services being cut? Are we not all liable for repaying debt already invested into the country? Is it only those in receipt of benefit that benefit from a welfare system or do we all benefit by eliminating the problems caused by desperate people? Aren't we all benefiting from the peace and prosperity afforded us by our armed services and nuclear deterrent - how do you proportion out usage of a trident submarine?!? The reality is that we all benefit from the things we invest to make this nation great i.e. a place that people want to emigrate to. Our share of the cost of these things doesn't depend on usage but simple what it costs. Of course, we want to make adjustments so people pay their 'fair share' (based on what they can afford) but that is a different matter. The fact remains that those paying more than their equal share are the positive contributors and those paying less are the negative contributors. Making adjustments based on dodgy estimates of individual draw on services and benefits is a cheat and creates the ridiculous scenario where the lowest contributors are deemed positive contributors despite the fact that we are clearly raising less in tax than we are spending... it is a complete nonsense. Edited November 10, 2015 by Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 What about them? Most people only object to the many wealth drainers that offset the benefits of the wealth generators. Is it not a unquestionable truth that if you didn't let in the negative contributors then the contribution of immigrants as a cohort would go up significantly? This is what's fundamentally what is wrong with the current immigration policy forced on us by the EU i.e. we are forced to take immigrants as a 'job lot'. A smarter immigration policy would be selective in order to maximising the benefits and minimising the negatives.It would make us financial and socially stronger... why the hell would anyone object (other than migrants rejected)? Are we only liable to contribute to the NHS when we are actually using it? Is it only those who receive social services that benefit from the work they do or are there benefits for society as a whole? Do we not benefit from the legal system, police and prisons even though most people do not directly contribute to the cost? Do we not all benefit from the borrowing that keeps taxes down and/or stops public services being cut? Are we not all liable for repaying debt already invested into the country? Is it only those in receipt of benefit that benefit from a welfare system or do we all benefit by eliminating the problems caused by desperate people? Aren't we all benefiting from the peace and prosperity afforded us by our armed services and nuclear deterrent - how do you proportion out usage of a trident submarine?!? The reality is that we all benefit from the things we invest to make this nation great i.e. a place that people want to emigrate to. Our share of the cost of these things doesn't depend on usage but simple what it costs. Of course, we want to make adjustments so people pay their 'fair share' (based on what they can afford) but that is a different matter. The fact remains that those paying more than their equal share are the positive contributors and those paying less are the negative contributors. Making adjustments based on dodgy estimates of individual draw on services and benefits is a cheat and creates the ridiculous scenario where the lowest contributors are deemed positive contributors despite the fact that we are clearly raising less in tax than we are spending... it is a complete nonsense. They detail their methodology in the study and how they differentiate between services used and passive services as you describe. You will have to go and look at the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 They detail their methodology in the study and how they differentiate between services used and passive services as you describe. You will have to go and look at the study. Does it also take into account the displaced employment of Brits, and the benefits they then subsequently have to claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now