£30M of UK child benefit goes to EU families

[Zamo]

Are you saying that me and my partner shouldn't get tax-credits over my income despite the fact that we massively over-pay the government for what we get back in return?

 

Are you suggesting that all we should do is shut up and pay for the right to live in this pleasant land - a right with no rights compared to the British?

 

If you are getting tax credits then it is highly unlikely you are over paying.

 

The contribution requirement for each adult averages out at approx £16k per annum to keep the country ticking over. Explain to me why immigrants should only be considered liable for expenses taken out directly in the form of benefits or services? Why aren't they also liable for the share of things like defence, national debt repayment etc? The threshold for assessing positive or negative contribution is set at £16k... it is not what you directly take out.

 

So, yes, you should pay for the right to live in this country just the same as the rest of us. And immigrants that can't make the grade should be turned away and those that can should be welcomed with open arms. No discrimination on grounds of race or nationality... just usefulness. Think of it like a job interview.

[Cyclone]

It's the UK benefits and tax credit system which makes "the UK responsible for the child that is not in the UK and isn't a UK citizen", not the family decision for an immigrant worker to come and work here.

That's easy to fix then. Change the system.

Isn't that what is being discussed? The fact that it is like this now is not an argument why it should be like this.

Per the above, it's the UK benefits and tax credit system which entitles the worker to the foreign-paid benefits in question. There's no need to assume anything.

I think you've missed my point.

 

If you want to put an end to it, change the domestic system. There might be a fair bit of collateral damage, though. But hey-ho.

 

In what form? It's not like it's an EU rule that we must follow, so simply change it.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 11:15 ----------

 

And immigrants that can't make the grade should be turned away and those that can should be welcomed with open arms. No discrimination on grounds of race or nationality... just usefulness. Think of it like a job interview.

 

And if they've permanently immigrated here, and lose their job in 20 years time then they should have exactly the same right to benefits as a native.

 

The right to free movement within the EU effectively makes us all 'citizens' of the EU with regards to this though. You can move to another EU country right now, in an unemployed state, and claim benefits there. In much the same way as if you moved from Yorkshire to Cornwall.

[chalga]

 

The contribution requirement for each adult averages out at approx £16k per annum to keep the country ticking over. Explain to me why immigrants should only be considered liable for expenses taken out directly in the form of benefits or services? Why aren't they also liable for the share of things like defence, national debt repayment etc? The threshold for assessing positive or negative contribution is set at £16k... it is not what you directly take out.

 

 

Immigrants are not responsible for how the money that they contribute in deductions from their wages to the UK pot are used...........the UK government is............if you are not satisfied with how immigrants contributions are used,then complain to the government,they are the ones that allocate where the money goes when it goes out of the pot..........or are you saying that immigrants contributions go into one pot and everybody elses go into another pot?

[L00b]

That's easy to fix then. Change the system.

Indeed.

Isn't that what is being discussed?

Well, that would depend on whether you consider the proposed solution to formally turn all immigrants (incl. EU) as 2nd rate citizens as "discussing"

I think you've missed my point.

No, I just sought to comment on what I perceived to be a flaw in the logic underpinning it. I understand the point and agree with it.

 

As regards 'what form' for the collateral damage, the UK would be transitioning from the current "work here-entitled anywhere" model to the "live here-entitled here" model (in view of current models of EU Member States).

 

So, all Brits working here (or for a UK company but based overseas) having family overseas and in receipt of any benefits for that family under the current system, would cease to get them. That's just one example.

[Zamo]

What would you think if counties could make the same argument.

 

Could you think of a single reason why someone from Lancashire should have the same benefit rights as a local when they've moved to Yorkshire?

 

That's the debate... where do we set our borders. county level, national level, continent level or world level.

 

At the moment people don't see to have a problem with discriminating against people from outside Europe (restricting entry and limiting access to benefits). That is apparently not considered racist, xenophobic or bigoted. But when the British want to control their own border in the same way those are the accusations that are thrown at them. It is a double standard.

 

For the record though... I'd be against counties imposing border control.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 11:34 ----------

 

And if they've permanently immigrated here, and lose their job in 20 years time then they should have exactly the same right to benefits as a native.

 

Absolutely. Even sooner than that. I would suggest that we grant immigrants entry based on some sort of contribution assessment that is then reviewed after a year. Make the grade and they are free to stay with the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

[chalga]

 

At the moment people don't see to have a problem with discriminating against people from outside Europe (restricting entry and limiting access to benefits). That is apparently not considered racist, xenophobic or bigoted. But when the British want to control their own border in the same way those are the accusations that are thrown at them. It is a double standard.

 

Britain can easily control it's own border by leaving the EU,nobody has a problem with that,people call others racist,xenophobic or bigoted when they are exactly that...........like when they complain about the lack of English spoken on trains,that Rumanians are bound to be in a culture of crime,that 26 MILLION are after your job,when a TIDAL WAVE of 29 MILLION Rumanians and Bulgarians are fearmongered about.............your post is exactly the kind of goalpost moving that is being exposed on here...........and will continue to be so.

[Zamo]

Immigrants are not responsible for how the money that they contribute in deductions from their wages to the UK pot are used...........the UK government is............if you are not satisfied with how immigrants contributions are used,then complain to the government,they are the ones that allocate where the money goes when it goes out of the pot..........or are you saying that immigrants contributions go into one pot and everybody elses go into another pot?

 

It is nothing to do with how contributions are used. Everyones contribution is distributed the same way because, as you say, it goes into the same pot. Positive or negative contribution is about whether people are paying their share of the pot i.e. total pot divided by number of adults. That comes out at about £16k.

 

What you and others keep doing is talking about immigrants paying more than they take out in the form of services and benefits. That may be true but it is irrelevant because there are indirect benefits and the indirect costs still need to be paid. Just because I haven't use the NHS this years doesn't mean I am not liable to contribute does it? My share of the cost remains the same regardless of what I take out. Same for things like defence - just because we haven't repelled any invaders this year doesn't mean we are not liable for the cost of having it there.

 

What immigrants take out of our system directly is irrelevant. The test is whether they can make a positve contribution to its upkeep... £16k per adult. Granted, there are some economies of scale but we still want to be screening out anyone not getting fairly close.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 11:51 ----------

 

Britain can easily control it's own border by leaving the EU,nobody has a problem with that,people call others racist,xenophobic or bigoted when they are exactly that...........like when they complain about the lack of English spoken on trains,that Rumanians are bound to be in a culture of crime,that 26 MILLION are after your job,when a TIDAL WAVE of 29 MILLION Rumanians and Bulgarians are fearmongered about.............your post is exactly the kind of goalpost moving that is being exposed on here...........and will continue to be so.

 

So it isn't bigoted from Europe to have border controls in place to stop any Tom, Dick or Harry coming from Africa or South America but it is bigoted if the British want to introduce the same border controls to stop any Tom, Dick or Harry coming from Romania?

 

Is it any wonder that the more you 'expose' our xenophobia the more support UKIP seems to get.

[chalga]

 

What immigrants take out of our system directly is irrelevant. The test is whether they can make a positve contribution to its upkeep... £16k per adult. Granted, there are some economies of scale but we still want to be screening out anyone not getting fairly close.

 

Most EU immigration is short term,the reason that turns most people into negative contributors to the UK economy is the old age pension and use of the NHS when past the age of retirement.........as most EU immigration is short term,most immigrants will not get anything like a full pension,or still be in the UK when they are OAP's and be making use of the NHS:

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

 

 

Firstly, these are averages. Whether you pay more than you get back will depend a great deal on whether you have children of school age, whether you claim child benefit, or whether you need to call on the NHS. Have you taken maternity or paternity leave, or taken part in a government training scheme? It all increases the value you are deemed to have extracted from the state.

But the biggest single factor pushing a greater proportion of homes into state dependency is our aging population and the increasing numbers in need of a state pension.

As they hit retirement, individuals who may have been net contributors all their adult lives suddenly move from paying income tax to taking the state pension and, with age, becoming more likely to call upon services such as the NHS.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 11:02 ----------

 

 

So it isn't bigoted from Europe to have border controls in place to stop any Tom, Dick or Harry coming from Africa or South America but it is bigoted if the British want to introduce the same border controls to stop any Tom, Dick or Harry coming from Romania?

 

Is it any wonder that the more you 'expose' our xenophobia the more support UKIP seems to get.

 

I've never said it is bigoted to leave the EU..........the EU does not impose how a country should treat non EU people,if a country wants to let in non EU people in exactly the same way that it lets in EU people,let it do so,let the UK abolish controls for non EU people,who is stopping that?

[L00b]

At the moment people don't see to have a problem with discriminating against people from outside Europe (restricting entry and limiting access to benefits). That is apparently not considered racist, xenophobic or bigoted. But when the British want to control their own border in the same way those are the accusations that are thrown at them. It is a double standard.

Still at it with your "double-standard" strawman, I see.

 

In the context of a UK exit from the EU (or renegotiated membership terms, for that matter), there is still a bit of a gulf between "controlling borders" and "denying economic migrants rights made available to them under UK legislation", wouldn't you say?

 

In that gulf lies the difference between rational debate (requirements and resources need to be balanced, no argument there) and xenophobia (immigrants are not British so unworthy of our jobs, our money, our <etc.>).

 

It's a gulf which neither you nor ivanava nor a few others ever acknowledge. Other than to play the "he called me a spigot/wacist/xenomorph" card under false pretences. Such as in the above posts.

[chalga]

 

Is it any wonder that the more you 'expose' our xenophobia the more support UKIP seems to get.

 

 

If whoever is responding to the UKIP message wants to do that,it is entirely up to them to do so,all those opposed to the UKIP message are doing is pointing out what you are admitting is happening,and I can't see any problem at all with that.