More Brits claiming Benefit abroad than Immigrants here

[colinsdog]

Everyone who is a net contributor is subsidising everyone who is not a net contributor. It's hardly rocket science.

 

So you contribute the same as lets say a premiership footballer then?

interesting theory.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 13:38 ----------

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11992918/David-Camerons-four-year-migrant-benefit-proposal-could-encourage-Britons-to-quit-work.html

 

 

Mr Farage also said there was “no evidence” locking EU migrants out of benefits for four years “would actually reduce the number of people coming to Britain”.

 

 

Surely it would mean fewer EU citizens travelling to other EU countries if they couldn't support themselves if they failed to find work . The four year proposal seems fair to me because the individual will have paid taxes in the country they reside before claiming benefits . I thought the idea was to reduce the number of benefit scroungers coming to Britain not good hard workers .

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 13:32 ----------

 

 

 

Also British people who work in the UK black economy are de-valuing the price of labour .

 

Funny enough on the Apprentice TV program the other night, one team was charging £10 and hour for the labour of three people which worked out as £3.33 per hour each .

 

You do know the apprentice is made up? I.e. on TV.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 13:52 ----------

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

 

earning £38k is about the tipping point. After that its a slight contribution.

 

More or less 60% of the UK are scroungers.

About 90% of Sheffield are too. If we go on average earnings.

[Berberis]

Youre not subsidising them. People who earn more are subsidising you.

The cut off point between negative and positive contribution is rather high.

 

What is this cut off point you refer to?

[Zamo]

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.

 

Maybe but that will not make them a positive contributor - there are lots of other costs that have to be met/offset before you reach the positive contribution level.

 

Have a look at this and click on the chart at the top of the article. It roughly shows the point at which a household would start making a positive contribution. Nobody who qualifies for any welfare benefit will be anywhere near close.

[WiseOwl182]

So you contribute the same as lets say a premiership footballer then?

interesting theory.

 

I've already said that some net contributors will subsidise the net recipients more than others. However anyone who is a net contributor is, by definition, not being subsidised. They are paying in more than they are taking out.

[colinsdog]

What is this cut off point you refer to?

 

earning £38k is about the tipping point. After that its a slight contribution on an upward scale.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:35 ----------

 

I've already said that some net contributors will subsidise the net recipients more than others. However anyone who is a net contributor is, by definition, not being subsidised. They are paying in more than they are taking out.

 

Without excessive NET contributers the countries services would fall apart.

 

Unless you are an extremely high earner you really are not contributing much at all. Nothing to brag about. You certainly do not subsidise thousands of migrants.

 

Most of this top percentile are located in the south east.

 

As pointed out about 90% fall into the negative category in Sheffield.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:38 ----------

 

note: that's a high earner with a partner who works, no kids. Or single with no kids.

Edited November 13, 2015 by colinsdog
edit

[Titanic99]

Maybe but that will not make them a positive contributor - there are lots of other costs that have to be met/offset before you reach the positive contribution level.

 

Have a look at this and click on the chart at the top of the article. It roughly shows the point at which a household would start making a positive contribution. Nobody who qualifies for any welfare benefit will be anywhere near close.

 

The huge flaw in them figures is the calculation of the household size.

A young single, fit person could come here and find employment but need a small amount of help towards their rent in the form of Housing Benefit but have negligible need for the NHS and zero need for Education.

 

Those people could well be paying more in than they are taking out, whereas those with families earning the same are likely to be the opposite.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Titanic99

[colinsdog]

Maybe but that will not make them a positive contributor - there are lots of other costs that have to be met/offset before you reach the positive contribution level.

 

Have a look at this and click on the chart at the top of the article. It roughly shows the point at which a household would start making a positive contribution. Nobody who qualifies for any welfare benefit will be anywhere near close.

 

I agree with you on this one chap.

 

A family of 4, 2 parents and 2 small children, 1 of them works a £50k job and the other doesn't work is probably a negative contributor when all benefits and subsidies are worked out (due to small kids).

[WiseOwl182]

earning £38k is about the tipping point. After that its a slight contribution on an upward scale.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:35 ----------

 

 

Without excessive NET contributers the countries services would fall apart.

 

Unless you are an extremely high earner you really are not contributing much at all. Nothing to brag about. You certainly do not subsidise thousands of migrants.

 

Most of this top percentile are located in the south east.

 

As pointed out about 90% fall into the negative category in Sheffield.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 14:38 ----------

 

note: that's a high earner with a partner who works, no kids. Or single with no kids.

 

 

 

I'm still net contributing, so I'm still subsidising net recipients, even if not to the degree of the very rich. Low paid EU migrants are an additional burden we could do without. Aside from a small number of genuine asylum seekers, why bring in any net recipients at all?

[Titanic99]

I'm still net contributing, so I'm still subsidising net recipients, even if not to the degree of the very rich. Low paid EU migrants are an additional burden we could do without. Aside from a small number of genuine asylum seekers, why bring in any net recipients at all?

 

How do you know they're going to be a net recipient at the point of them coming in and likewise how do you know Brits going abroad will be net contributors?

[colinsdog]

I'm still net contributing, so I'm still subsidising net recipients, even if not to the degree of the very rich. Low paid EU migrants are an additional burden we could do without. Aside from a small number of genuine asylum seekers, why bring in any net recipients at all?

 

60% of the UK household is in negative. That's about 35 million people sponging off the tax payer.

 

You seem to be arguing they should not be here. Yet many are working and vital jobs.

 

Maybe we should get rid of 80% of the nurses because they are not positive contributors economically?