It's not out of the blue. The UK knew it was coming since the accounting rules were changed (2002!). I reckon the timing is political, to put Cameron in his place ;) :p
Printable View
It's not out of the blue. The UK knew it was coming since the accounting rules were changed (2002!). I reckon the timing is political, to put Cameron in his place ;) :p
But why would the EU want to give more fire-power to Farage?Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Merkel moves to block Cameron’s plan to limit EU migrants
Cameron now wants to change the fundamental principles of EU that include the free movement of goods and people within the EU countries.Quote:
The German chancellor said her country was not willing to compromise the “fundamental principle” of free movement within the 28 nation bloc. Her intervention comes days after Mr Cameron threatened to introduce quotas for EU workers in a bid to find a way to wrest control of its borders back from Brussels.
It's obvious that this is part of a campaign to mitigate loss of voters to UKIP rather than his real EU strategy.
Maybe they just want him to stop sitting on the fence, whinging and putting his stick in the works ;) :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
the UK is headed for sharia law - big ben will be renamed big mohammud
Two reasons. Firstly we can blame the Americans for making English such a universally taught language that many migrants to the EU will head for the one country where they already know the language which is the UK. Secondly thanks to having a massive Empire that spanned the globe many will go to what they feel is the country they have the closest affinity with which is... the UK. Francophones tend to head for France, Turks tend to head for Germany. South Americans go to Spain except for Brazilians who head to Portugal or Italy where many of them are from and which allow dual citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
I find it amusing that the Daily Mail sell this concept that Afghans are huddled around some benefits comparison website before choosing which country to head to in the EU.
Also we should stop deluding ourselves that we have anything like the worst refugee problem. Try telling that to the Greeks and Italians, both of which are often the point of entry for migrants and are therefore the ones that have the biggest problem.
I think we've run out of political capital in the EU. All Cameron can threaten is to leave the EU with each tantrum he has, I think many in the EU would be happy with that as all we do is block changes and try to renegotiate EU fundamentals. Also I don't think Britain's internal politics are particularly high when it comes to announcing things like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
As driveace's posts show there are many in the UK, particularly in the older population who just will not believe the benefits EU membership gives us WRT trade and so on no matter how many times they are told. I think its time to have a vote, leave the EU and see the British economy sink before begging to rejoin again. Perhaps then we will have a graphic demonstration of what exactly the UK gets from the EU, many will be surprised when multinational banks and manufacturers leave the UK leaving millions unemployed with a massive hole in the budget. It will hurt and might bankrupt the country but how else will people here learn?
BBC should send live coverage from Sicily everyday, so everyone in UK could see, who really has an immigration problem...
Does it mean the City is the main beneficiary of the UK membership in the EU and simply keeps the rest of the population hostages?Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Really? :andrea:
freakin' bastards... sending money back to their wives and children... how do they dare? :rolleyes:
Ok, well please enlighten us to why someone sending their own money that they've earned back to their family is a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by decision
Out- bloody -rageous!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben
Claiming money for wives and children that still live in the original country of the person claiming the money in the UK !And they are NOT working for it either !
Would it be OK for me to illegally claim money for my Daughter living in Australia ?
The mayor of Calais says that the UK IS seen as a "Soft Touch" and the benefits are a magnet to immigrants !
Then of course to all the do gooders she is talking sh* t I suppose !
Not earned !!!! Claimed from the UK benefits system !Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
That's the heart of the problem. People who think that money received from the government in return for no work has been earned. Fantasyland for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Total benefit fraud costs the UK £1.1 billion per year, most of which is from British nationals who form the vast majority of benefits claimants. Now that is a lot, but to put it into perspective its 0.7% of the total benefits budget (£164 billion FY 2013/4). Although it needs to be reduced it is certainly not the biggest problem facing the UK or the treasury, and migrants are only a small part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nal-230614.pdf
BTW if you think the UK is a soft touch for benefits compared to France you clearly don't know anything about the French system!
So just because an immigrant has money you automatically assume that they have received it through benefits?Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
Well Mal if you know better that the Mayor of Calais ,who states that she can understand why all the immigrants final destination is the UK.She states the benefits system is a MAGNET ,and that the UK is seen as a SOFT TOUCH !
She lives there ,and surely she knows the French system better than YOU and I !
Bet your not a UKIP or Conservative voter !
The heart of the problem is people stereotyping all immigrants as work shy benefit scroungers and pinning all the UKs so called 'problems' on foreigners, when the statistics show that EU migrants to the UK are less likely to be unemployed than UK nationals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
It's amazing isn't it? Maybe I'll quit my job tomorrow as I'll be so much better off on the benefit system and have such a luxurious life.Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
Don't automatically assume anything Jon !
Don't you read or watch TV !
Fact is that many people claiming benefits also claim for family still living in their mother country !
I talk to people who are unemployed ,who visit benefits offices ,rather than find them work ,they are made aware of more benefits they can claim.
I know a guy who got in touch with the government employment agency ,he had a vacancy for a parts delivery person .
After 10 days nobody turned up for an interview .He rang the employment agency ,to be told ,they had sent 8 people ! Not 1 turned up !The following day a guy turns up .The employed says "Why did you leave your last job"? The reply was " I couldn't stand the foreman,and I smacked him in the mouth" !Did he want employment ?
My wife is French so I'm quite aware of their benefits system thanks. I've seen what you claim is your pension in the UK, I suggest you look up what you would be receiving in France and not go green with envy. Or unemployment benefits or disability entitlements. What they are entitled to is shocking and unsustainable but that's another topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
What a surprise that the person advocating most strongly the UKIP position on benefits should display such poor standards of English.
OK guys ,what's the answer to the UKs problems ?
No limits on immigration
Stay in the EU
Pay more to Pensioners and more Money for benefit claimants
Bring back all the coal mining jobs
Cut V.A.T on everything to 10%
Tax the people who earn £100,000 at 60%
Tell me your plans
You might want to remember that, while most of the discussion has been about immigrants, I did not specify them. Malbec noted a couple posts above about the total, not just immigrant, benefit problem. Any system that pays to people for sitting around is doomed long term. Despite various reform attempts, we have a similar problem here. Paying even more for people not citizens or not actually in the country is madness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Read Malbec's post again. The apparent 'problem' is about 0.7% of benefit spending. Yes, ideally you want this to be 0% but is this 0.7% going to doom the country? Of course it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The electorate needs to rethink its priorities.
My original point in starting this thread was to point out that leaving the EU won't solve the majority of the migration 'problem' since the migrants that are most complained about are from outside the EU.
UK, like most countries, should face the truth. Their welfare system is broken. Too many people who don't deserve it have access to welfare. The problem is that politicians have no incentive to do much about it. They go on about immigrants because they are easy targets. Doing what must be done, cutting the benefits for all the leeches that parasitize the system, immigrants or British, can and probably will hurt their political ambitions.
You can't buy votes without handing out money in some form. Maybe at some point the politicians in our countries will wake up and figure out that if the working class can find good enough jobs, then we can fund the welfare that is actually needed, not given for the sake of giving it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben
Here in the US there are loopholes in every assistance/welfare system, and they allow for easily screwing the system. That's why so many people do it.
There is always someone looking for a free ride. If access to that ride is made too easy, then the number of people interested in taking it rises. That's human nature and any system that doesn't take human nature into account will ultimately fail of its own weight.
Welfare systems were originally meant as a short term bridge for people who had experienced bad luck to get back on their feet. That is a laudable goal which I support. It's when the bridge becomes a lifestyle that the long term viability of the system comes into doubt. The moneys spent on welfare would be much better served if they were spent on infrastructure improvements and such. That would create jobs and income for those willing to work. For those not willing to work and who don't have a real (not pretend) disability - screw em.
So how many people actually use welfare as a lifestyle choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
We in the UK like most developed countries use the benefits system as a means of calculating the total number of unemployed. The vast majority of people transit through benefits and eventually find employment, so much so that we (like every developed country on earth) can use the number of benefits recipients as an index of economic performance. Better economic performance results in a direct lowering of the unemployment rate which is statistically significant enough to base economic policy on, even if many people choose jobs that pay barely more than what they get anyway through benefits. We know that obviously there is a minority who do not seek work and sponge off the system for most of their life but it is important to remember they are a minority, not large enough to skew the statistics significantly.
As for being a bridge, its interesting that different countries have such differing attitudes. In the UK unemployment benefits are at subsistence level and you need to have demonstrated that you have used up much of your assets before becoming eligible. In France and other continental countries the attitude is very different. If you are a high earner then you would have put in much more money into the system via tax than others, therefore it is only right and just that you get more out of the system when you are unlucky in life, therefore unemployment benefit comes in as soon as you lose your job and is linked to your pre-redundancy salary...
It doesn't take too awfully many people abusing the system to invalidate it. And as usual, percentage statistics can be misleading. You say the vast majority go through the system and back into the workforce - which is the goal of course. What is that vast majority in terms of actual numbers though. Or more to the point, what is the actual number who don't? If its a hundred people that is lost in the noise. If its ten thousand (most likely much more), then that is significant People need to have a vested interest for any system to function. A free hand out is most definitely not giving anyone a vested interest in the system. Its just creating a dependent class. Working for that benefit, even if its sweeping the public areas, gives some sense of self worth and, more importantly, gives most a desire and incentive to find better job ;). The problem with most welfare systems is that they are just free handouts. They'd work so much better if the programs were using basic human nature as a positive force toward the goal instead of the current disincentive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
I wouldn't agree that a few people abusing the system is enough to conclude that the benefit system isn't working. In the case of the UK, as the vast majority of people are only on unemployment benefits for 6 months before they get back into to work, then it shows that the system is largely working as intended. For the vast majority unemployment benefits are not a 'hand out' but a 'hand up' back into employment.
But many people like Starter are ideologically opposed to giving 'hand outs' for people who are not contributing. The example of getting people to work to receive their benefits is basically just forcing unpaid labour. It is only one step up from slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
In this case would it be better for businesses to have incentives to pay a higher minimum wage? Essentially taking away the state 'hand out' and distributing it through employment. This would increase the attraction of work. It would be more beneficial for the recipient than unemployment benefit as he would be gaining work experience and skills that could lead to better work. As well as this, higher disposable incomes would increase economic activity in general.
?? Where did I say to force anyone? I just suggested that if you want to get something then you need to do something in return for it. Other than taking up space and using air. If someone doesn't feel they want to work for a government benefit more power to them. They just wouldn't get the benefit. That's hardly slavery. There's what, some seven billion or so people in the world? No one is so special that if they don't want to try they should get a free ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
I didn't see anywhere where Starter opposed a hand up, just that he opposed a hand out. And on that point I agree with him. None of us should work harder/longer/smarter to support those that don't want to do for themselves.
And here in the US, similar to the UK, unemployment benefit are limited. To me the real burden on the system is the long term disability type payments, housing assistance, tax breaks, etc. I have no problem with helping those that actually need help, but I frequently see examples of it being abused.
Here in the US, the taxation system has become a means of assistance, and the system has huge loopholes in it. Combined with those abusing the system intentionally, it's money completely wasted on the lazy or those intentionally working the system. And in some cases, it requires no ill intention, it's just a screwed up system with loopholes so large that those doing everything legally still get a greater benefit than they should.
I can agree that more money spent on job creation, higher wages, etc would all be a good thing. But in the absence of that, I personally would have no problem if a person (of able mind and body) would have to perform work for the government helping them. There are plenty of ways they could also have said people perform work that would save the government money in assistance programs and at the same time give people job training. We have a local city that runs a large program doing just that, and it helps get people back to work as well as keeps them from paying out so much money.
Forget the few lazy sods cheating the system. They amount to peanuts against bonuses for the managers of bailed out businesses, tax fraudsters, money launderers... How many of these are immigrants, I wonder :dozey:
Not able to comment on the details of England's system but we know they "the financial sector" has never been more entrenched, and more profitable than in recent years....In that respect England mimics America...Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
And as an example of what you say above we just voted in mid-term elections.
2 of the things we had to vote on were to float bonds to pay for the local school system---because for 3 years our REPUBLICAN controlled State legislature has been "unable" to write a budget to allocate funds which by law they must--and are in fact been judged in contempt of the Supreme Court of the State..
3 years..no mandatory budget for schools...
But it took these lackeys just 3 days to put together and pass a $9,000,000,000 tax "deferal"---a gift---for Boeing (who has nearly abandoned manufactring things in this state (sure they still assemble aircraft....but they don't MAKE a lot of the things they assemble here)
Boeing CEO somehow has to struggle along on just:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...soars/6425487/
And pooor ol Boeing is really in need of that 9 billion tax break:Quote:
Boeing CEO James McNerney's 2013 compensation soared in 2013.
McNerney's pay was up 9.4% to $23.2 million from about $21.2 million in 2012. But his overall compensation jumped 66% on a $24.2 million gain from restricted shares that vested and from previously awarded stock options McNerney cashed in, Boeing said Friday in its annual proxy. McNerney gained about $7.3 million from vested shares and exercised stock options in 2012.
McNerney's $1.9 million salary, $3.7 million stock award and $3.7 million stock option grant were virtually unchanged from 2012. His annual incentive bonus grew 19% to $12.8 million.
Boeing valued McNerney's perks at $885,000, including:
$305,000 for personal use of corporate aircraft,
$51,700 for ground transport
and nearly $44,000 for tax preparation and planning services.
But really I shouldn't complain, giving Boeing a 9 billion dollar break only costs each man, woman and child in this state just $1304....chicken feed to the CEOQuote:
The commercial and military aircraft giant delivered a record 648 airliners last year and had massive backlog order for 1,355 more.
Oh but you can't suggest that the big job providers might pay their fair share, or they'll surely close shop and take their monies elsewhere :yadayada:
No, let's focus on the real problem: that 0.1% of lazy immigrants who play the system.
Or the 0.2% of feckless natives like these for example:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-sou...wales-29599487
Time to close the borders !!!
Juncker's new EU Commission takes office
Good news for Europe.
Bad news for David Cameron.