Zamo Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Yes,but this doesn't mean they are paying their 'fair share'..............if they are not taking work,how can they hope to be paying enough tax for them to be able to pay their fair share?.............many may be paying no tax at all to the country they are in,but choose to pay tax to the country they come from,or where they hold a bank account.They may not have private health insurance,but expect to be treated on the country that they are in NHS..........paying their 'Fair Share' is exactly how your collective scheme would work in any country............why would it be different in the UK as opposed to any other country..........the basic principle remains the same whichever country you are in,because every country has a government,people and businesses and a running cost..........which is the same as which your UK collective is based on. If you are a UK pensioner living abroad you generally pay tax on your income to the country where you reside. Pensioners also pumping in regular money from outside the economy making the economy stronger and will take next to nothing out. That is not the case when it comes to immigrants coming to the UK so we need a different immigrantion policy to places like Greece. That said, if Greece, or whoever, decided it didn't want British immigrants who couldn't pay 'share' then that would be their business. They need to sit down and work out what works for them. Their responsibility is to put the interests of Greeks first and wannabe immigrants second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 If you are a UK pensioner living abroad you generally pay tax on your income to the country where you reside. Pensioners also pumping in regular money from outside the economy making the economy stronger and will take next to nothing out. That is not the case when it comes to immigrants coming to the UK so we need a different immigrantion policy to places like Greece. Immigrants are pumping money ino the UK economy,the Dustmann survey already told you that EU immigrants have contributed 25 billion since the early since accession.You have no figures to dispute that. Aside from immigrants,the whole of the UK population would need to be earning the figure needed for your collective to work,which,IMO,would require government legislation on a minimum wage to enable everybody to get that figure,otherwise,businesses would be preventing people from paying their fair share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 But you've just said that this is how the UK economy should function. Forget immigrants,the UK population all has to be earning the wage needed to pay their fair share,whatever it is. You are hard work! 'Fair share' can be more or less than our 'share' of the country's running costs. 'Fair share' is based on what the government deems reasonable for a person to pay based on their income and circumstances. Those whose 'fair share' is more than their 'share' are positive contributors to the state and those whose 'fair share' is less than their 'share' are negative contributors. At the moment we do not have enough positive contributors to offset the negative contributors and that is why we have a deficit each year and national debt is on the up. What we obviously need is more positive contributors and not more negative contributors, which is why I say selective immigration is approporiate. Selective immigration is not the solution to all our problems but it will at least help make our problems better instead of making them worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 You are hard work! 'Fair share' can be more or less than our 'share' of the country's running costs. 'Fair share' is based on what the government deems reasonable for a person to pay based on their income and circumstances. Those whose 'fair share' is more than their 'share' are positive contributors to the state and those whose 'fair share' is less than their 'share' are negative contributors. At the moment we do not have enough positive contributors to offset the negative contributors and that is why we have a deficit each year and national debt is on the up. What we obviously need is more positive contributors and not more negative contributors, which is why I say selective immigration is approporiate. Selective immigration is not the solution to all our problems but it will at least help make our problems better instead of making them worse. I know all that,what i am saying is that legislation would have to be applied to pay a minimum wage for all UK citizens to enable them to be paying their 'fair share'.............whatever the figure was,because that would depend on how much the government spent and how much taxes brought in,otherwise,if they were not earning enough,it would be the business preventing them from doing that, and so preventing the collective from acheiving what it needed to...........everybody paying their fair share.Forget immigrants,i am just talking about the UK population as it is,if no more immigrants came in. ---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 16:47 ---------- You are hard work! 'Fair share' can be more or less than our 'share' of the country's running costs. 'Fair share' is based on what the government deems reasonable for a person to pay based on their income and circumstances. Those whose 'fair share' is more than their 'share' are positive contributors to the state and those whose 'fair share' is less than their 'share' are negative contributors. Also,we are not debating on what the government deems to be a fair share,the government doesn't work like that.What we are talking about is your idea and what you deemed reasonable............lets not start moving the goalposts again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Immigrants are pumping money ino the UK economy,the Dustmann survey already told you that EU immigrants have contributed 25 billion since the early since accession.You have no figures to dispute that. They do not pump new money in from abroad. They are recycling money already in the economy, which is I do not deny is important because keeping money moving is good for the economy, but it isn't the same. ---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 18:01 ---------- Also,we are not debating on what the government deems to be a fair share,the government doesn't work like that.What we are talking about is your idea and what you deemed reasonable............lets not start moving the goalposts again. My idea is not to get everyone to pay their share because that is unrealistic and not fair! My ideas is to try and use immigration to our advantage but screening out negative contributors using 'share' as the measure for assessing contribution. It is also worth pointing out that selective immigration doesn't mean you stop issuing visas. You can have visas for students or for people to work for a limited period of time (as they have in Australia). You just want to ensure that the long/permanent stayers are going to make a positve contribution over the long haul and that requires some screening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 They do not pump new money in from abroad. They are recycling money already in the economy, which is I do not deny is important because keeping money moving is good for the economy, but it isn't the same. ---------- Post added 28-05-2014 at 18:01 ---------- My idea is not to get everyone to pay their share because that is unrealistic and not fair! My ideas is to try and use immigration to our advantage but screening out negative contributors using 'share' as the measure for assessing contribution. But your idea has been shown up for the flaws that it has in it,and the unrealistic and unfair way that you are calculating it,as has been highlighted by other people as well as me,and the legislation that may well be needed to enable everyone to pay their fair share for everyone in the UK even if there were no immigrants in the UK.If it were fair,realistic and viable,governments around the world would be implementing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 But your idea has been shown up for the flaws that it has in it,and the unrealistic and unfair way that you are calculating it,as has been highlighted by other people as well as me,and the legislation that may well be needed to enable everyone to pay their fair share for everyone in the UK even if there were no immigrants in the UK.If it were fair,realistic and viable,governments around the world would be implementing it. Sigh.. I think I give up. It is an immigration policy. It wouldn't apply to people already here because you can't screen out people already here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Immigrants are pumping money ino the UK economy,the Dustmann survey already told you that EU immigrants have contributed 25 billion since the early since accession.You have no figures to dispute that. Aside from immigrants,the whole of the UK population would need to be earning the figure needed for your collective to work,which,IMO,would require government legislation on a minimum wage to enable everybody to get that figure,otherwise,businesses would be preventing people from paying their fair share. Its not very much and doesn't cover the cost of them being here, nor does it compensate the British that now have higher living costs because of all the extra people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Its not very much and doesn't cover the cost of them being here, nor does it compensate the British that now have higher living costs because of all the extra people. We,ve already been through this...........the figure is net,after the costs of them being here have been taken into account. Which British have higher costs because of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 We,ve already been through this...........the figure is net,after the costs of them being here have been taken into account. Which British have higher costs because of them? Yes and it didn't work out to be much at all per person and certainly doesn't cover the increased living costs that are cause by their presence or the cost of supporting the British people that are not in work because of immigration. Increasing the population has increased demand for energy, food and housing, this increased demand has increased the costs of these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.