How much more in tax are YOU willing to pay to avoid immigration?

The_White_Horse

people don't really care about immigrants arriving, who work, pay tax and don't take from the state. they have a problem with romanian beggers, human traffickers and the nhs toursists etc.

we should welcome anyone here who wants to work. however, an immigrant should get NO benefits at all, until they have paid in for at least 10 yrs. that means no nhs (other than A&E) and no schooling etc.

in fairness, the 10yr rule should apply to all Brits over the age of 18 as well.

or at the very least, there should be a scale. why should someone in the queue for an op be ahead of a tax payer that has paid into the nhs for 30 years if they have never contributed a penny??

there should be cards given out. Platinum, Gold etc. a platimun card holder will go ahead of any gold card holder, etc. a platinum holder will only be in a queue with other platinum card holders.

same in A&E. and if you're drunk in A&E you should be made to wait until sober - even if you die in the process.

we need to get tougher.

Plus NOTHING should be translated into other languages. If immigrants want to come here, they must learn english. If they don't, they just go without.

MacMickster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The important thing is to rebalance the population so that the ratio of workers to pensioners remains the same or improves.

Whilst I understand this argument, surely it is a case of can-kicking of epic proportions.

In order to support the growing number of elderly we need the population to increase significantly.

What happens when that increased population becomes more elderly and life-expectancy continues to increase?

It really doesn't matter whether you are advocating increasing the population through immigration or encouraging the current population to have more children. A few generations down the line the population would have to increase exponentially to support the pensioners and NHS that exist then.

The only answer is to tax a bit more now, and also to ensure that far more of our current working age population are paying in to the system rather than taking out.

CLAPTON

the following are self evident truths

-the relevant measure of individual income of the people of a country is per capita income (i.e. the average income per inhabitant) rather than GDP itself

-GDP does of course affect the countries influence in the world

- per capita income includes children (too young to work) and retired people (too old to work) and the sick (unable to work) and the employed

-it is therefore obvious that the young skilled childless worker will produce more income than they consume (i.e. they fund themselves and children, retired, sick and unemployed)

-many, but not all, immigrants are young often skilled childless workers

-young childless people, after a time become older and often produce children

- to maintain a large number of workers relative to the non employed people would require either a continual expansion of the population or an artifical reduction in the non-employed

- some people put a (non-economic ) value on open spaces, peace, harmon, cultural diversity, ethnic restaurants etc.

Zekko

Make sure you 'save' in good periods where the UK national insurance contributors per pensioner is high,.... oh wait.....too late now.

nomoreboomandbust

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It would indeed.

As would mass euthanasia.

But neither of them are likely to be socially acceptable.

How about voluntary euthanasia, that sounds more acceptable, no need for such emotive language.

Also, why this obsession with immigrants, they are called "pagapensiones" (loosely translated as paying your pensions) in Spain but in a mocking way. This is because one Spanish minister said immigrants would come to pay for our pensions, that is clearly a joke as many of them are now unemployed and bleeding the country dry.

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

People don't want immigration to rebalance the ratio of young workers to pensioners, but they're also not willing, or in most cases able, to pay the required increases in taxation for that to be that case.

Not to mention the wider economic disaster of a shrinking percentage of workers having to maintain the infrastructure of the nation.

So how much more are YOU willing to pay. (Graham, especially you)

Some immigrants cover their cost of living here but many don't. A large number of immigrants are in unskilled jobs and paid less than a living wage. If you don't believe me, go to your nearest fast food outlet or turn up at your office at 4 am when the cleaners are there. Immigrants come here for this work because they get free schooling for their children, free medical care, housing allowances and various other benefits.

One can argue that providing a safe haven for the world's poor is an ultruistic thing to do. There are however practical problems of doing this:

• By permitting slave labour (which is what office cleaning often is), the government is effectively obliged to use tax payers money to subsidise low pay service industries.
• Immigration adds a huge burden to schooling, the health service etc. This will inevitably be a contributing factor to the declining quality of these services.
• Whilst first generation immigrants are usually hard working and motivated, their children often find themselves isolated (50% of young blacks are unemployed).
• Immigration also leads to increased squalor and deprivation. The Victorians would have been up in arms about some of the housing arrangements we see today (especially for immigrants).

Discussing immigration is always tricky because every forum has its quota of thought police who scream racism at the very mention of the word immigration. It should be discussed however. The fact is that the unemployment stats for young people in the UK (and particularly descendents of some immigrant groups) are dreadful. There are solutions to these problems but more immigration is not one of them.

Generali

The_White_Horse wrote: »

we should welcome anyone here who wants to work. however, an immigrant should get NO benefits at all, until they have paid in for at least 10 yrs. that means no nhs (other than A&E) and no schooling etc.

As a migrant married to an Aussie I get privileged status so our kids are educated and get health treatment at the expense of the state. For the first two years I cannot claim a penny. If I got hit by a car and needed an ambulance I would need to find $4-500 (they extend credit). No unemployment benefit, no child benefit: nada.

Immigrants that come over on a 'skilled visa' (i.e. come here because they bring a skill needed by Australia) can be unemployed for a month at which point they have to leave the country.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

in fairness, the 10yr rule should apply to all Brits over the age of 18 as well.

or at the very least, there should be a scale. why should someone in the queue for an op be ahead of a tax payer that has paid into the nhs for 30 years if they have never contributed a penny??

there should be cards given out. Platinum, Gold etc. a platimun card holder will go ahead of any gold card holder, etc. a platinum holder will only be in a queue with other platinum card holders.

People should pay tax and work however it's not reasonable to give more to the rich as many people that don't earn much aren't capable of earning much and let's face it, no matter how rich we all get someone still needs to sweep the streets and that person should be valued as highly by the rest of us as any doctor or footballer.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

same in A&E. and if you're drunk in A&E you should be made to wait until sober - even if you die in the process.

Wrong. Doctors swear the Hypocratic Oath. There is and should be no moral imperative behind whether or not people are treated. Perhaps it would be reasonable to say that if you get drunk and do something dumb then you should have to pay for your treatment.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Plus NOTHING should be translated into other languages. If immigrants want to come here, they must learn english. If they don't, they just go without.

It takes about 8 weeks to become competent in a spoken foreign language as an adult, less for a child. Public bodies should provide form fillers to assist all those that are illiterate but you should be expected to speak English if you want to live in England. The exception should be in Law Courts: you shouldn't be tried in a language you don't properly understand.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Still seems a good question to ask.

johnny_storm

Generali wrote: »

no matter how rich we all get someone still needs to sweep the streets and that person should be valued as highly by the rest of us as any doctor or footballer.

So someone who studied a 5 year degree, 2 foundation years and 3 years of vocational training to be fully qualified is valued just the same as someone who couldnt be bothered or capable of learning anything and just sweeps the street.

There's no wonder this country is going down the pan when people think things as stupid as this.

GeorgeHowell

johnny_storm wrote: »

So someone who studied a 5 year degree, 2 foundation years and 3 years of vocational training to be fully qualified is valued just the same as someone who couldnt be bothered or capable of learning anything and just sweeps the street.

There's no wonder this country is going down the pan when people think things as stupid as this.

I assume that "valued" is intended to mean appreciated as opposed to remunerated. There are undoubtedly lazy, useless doctors and footballers, and people doing menial jobs who are diligent and who go the extra mile. Nobody who does a decent day's work should be looked down upon or have anything to feel inferior about.

Pay for performance is supposed to be the answer to rewarding those who contribute most. However unfortunately it often turns out to be a good idea badly implemented. Too often weak and disreputable employers and management use it to address issues other than real job performance, eg ageism (reward the young who can go elsewhere at the expense of the older ones who cannot), retribution (punish those who rock the boat, who stand up for themselves, or whose face just doesn't fit), favouritism (reward the brown-nosers, line-towers, and those whose face does fit), cowardice (reward those who shout loudest for a pay rise to avoid the aggro of disappointing them).

I'm not often a champion for state school teachers. But the above issues are particularly a problem in areas like teaching where performance is not entirely quantifiable with indisputable metrics. For that reasons I can understand their resistance to making their whole pay rise dependent on perceived performance in the job