WiseOwl182 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 That's not what he is saying. You should read a bit more carefully. As a 40% taxpayer, I'd say that more movement around the EU is a good thing. It allows us to recruit good people. Why do you think that my considerable taxes are subsidising low paid EU immigrants? Have you had a proper look at where the money goes? By Cameron's own admission, 40% of EU migrants claim working tax credits. I agree with you about the other 60% that we are not subsidising, but why should my taxes be subsidising the 40% who are obviously low paid? If they can't afford to work and live here, don't come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 By Cameron's own admission, 40% of EU migrants claim working tax credits. I agree with you about the other 60% that we are not subsidising, but why should my taxes be subsidising the 40% who are obviously low paid? If they can't afford to work and live here, don't come. It doesn't even mean you aren't subsidising the other 60%. The cut off point for working tax credits happens long before someone reaches a level of contribution that is positive. All of those whose contribution falls short of a positive contribution (less than their equal share in State expenditure) leave a deficit that has to be made up by those paying more and/or through borrowing. It isn't direct subsidy (money straight in the pocket) but it is subsidy none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 Assuming you're a tax payer, why do you want your taxes to subsidise low paid EU immigrants so badly? What's your agenda? ---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 22:17 ---------- Absolutely. My agenda is quite simple. I'm of an age where I'm looking at where I want to retire to and I'm considering warmer climates. My children are reaching an age where they are considering the option to work abroad. In this country we are forever hearing about the numbers of people living, working and claiming Benefits over here, while hearing very little about the number of Brits doing the same in other countries. The reality is we have more than 5 million Brits living abroad and in some countries there are high numbers of these claiming Unemployment Benefits. Now can someone opposed to more immigration explain to me why I should be entitled to live abroad whilst stopping people from coming here, and why Brits should be allowed to claim Benefits abroad whilst stopping people from claiming them here. It's a two-way thing, we can live and work over there and they can do the same over here with the end result that we aren't restricted to spending all of our lives in the same country. ---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 12:31 ---------- By Cameron's own admission, 40% of EU migrants claim working tax credits. I agree with you about the other 60% that we are not subsidising, but why should my taxes be subsidising the 40% who are obviously low paid? If they can't afford to work and live here, don't come. I'd like to know where he's getting that information from. I thought we had over 2 million EU citizens of workign age over here and around 350000 claim Tax Credits which by my calculations is nowehere near 40%http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30243472 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphwire/2014/11/03/how-much-do-immigrants-really-claim-in-benefits/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) By Cameron's own admission, 40% of EU migrants claim working tax credits. I agree with you about the other 60% that we are not subsidising, but why should my taxes be subsidising the 40% who are obviously low paid? If they can't afford to work and live here, don't come. Your taxes will still be subsidising the Brits who may want to take those low paid jobs that immigrants not coming leave available.............and your taxes are still subsidising now,Brits who are so poorly paid that they don't make a positive contribution..........just the same as immigrants.............but of course those that want can always demand that those wages be used to make up towards a positive contribution...........but what they put their food on the table with after that,and all the other things in their lives,i've no idea..........but,hey,they might be on the streets but making a positive contribution.........they will be heroes. Edited November 13, 2015 by chalga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted November 13, 2015 Author Share Posted November 13, 2015 It doesn't even mean you aren't subsidising the other 60%. The cut off point for working tax credits happens long before someone reaches a level of contribution that is positive. All of those whose contribution falls short of a positive contribution (less than their equal share in State expenditure) leave a deficit that has to be made up by those paying more and/or through borrowing. It isn't direct subsidy (money straight in the pocket) but it is subsidy none the less. It also doesn't mean you are subsiding the 40% (I'd like to know where that figure comes from). Someone could claim £10 a week Tax Credits when paying £100 a week Tax and National Insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Your taxes will still be subsidising the Brits who may want to take those low paid jobs that immigrants not coming leave available.............and your taxes are still subsidising now,Brits who are so poorly paid that they don't make a positive contribution..........just the same as immigrants.............but of course those that want can always demand that those wages be used to make up towards a positive contribution...........but what they put their food on the table with after that,and all the other things in their lives,i've no idea..........but,hey,they might be on the streets but making a positive contribution.........they will be heroes. So I'm paying twice over. Once for the working tax credits to subsidise the low paid immigrant, and once for the out of work Brit on the dole because his/her job has been displaced by said immigrant. This makes it even worse. Instead, stop th low paid immigrant coming, let the Brit take the job, and make the employer pay enough such that working tax credits aren't needed. ---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 12:59 ---------- It also doesn't mean you are subsiding the 40% (I'd like to know where that figure comes from). Someone could claim £10 a week Tax Credits when paying £100 a week Tax and National Insurance. Anyone claiming tax credit is not being paid enough for their tax and NI contributions to make them net contributors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsdog Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 So I'm paying twice over. Once for the working tax credits to subsidise the low paid immigrant, and once for the out of work Brit on the dole because his/her job has been displaced by said immigrant. This makes it even worse. Instead, stop th low paid immigrant coming, let the Brit take the job, and make the employer pay enough such that working tax credits aren't needed. Youre not subsidising them. People who earn more are subsidising you. The cut off point between negative and positive contribution is rather high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I'm interested in why an article that was so damningly demolished when it was published at the start of the year (just listen to the R4 More Or Less programme that dealt with this), has become the subject of a thread now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 So I'm paying twice over. Once for the working tax credits to subsidise the low paid immigrant, and once for the out of work Brit on the dole because his/her job has been displaced by said immigrant. This makes it even worse. Instead, stop th low paid immigrant coming, let the Brit take the job, and make the employer pay enough such that working tax credits aren't needed. No,there's no such thing as his/her job.........just a job.Business chooses who they want in that job.If they think an immigrant is better than a Brit,or the Brit is not interested for the money/conditions/loss of benefits,immigrant probably will get it.There's nothing stopping a Brit from 'taking' the job now,if the employer deems them suitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Youre not subsidising them. People who earn more are subsidising you. The cut off point between negative and positive contribution is rather high. I'm a net contributor, so the bank account you hacked to find out my earnings clearly didn't belong to me. 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