Where is the UK headed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

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...
And as an example of what you say above we just voted in mid-term elections.......

.....complain, giving Boeing a 9 billion dollar break only costs each man, woman and child in this state just $1304....chicken feed to the CEO

---

Couldn't agree with you more in this case. Maryland, where I live, has a Democratic Governor and Legislature which does much the same thing. Doesn't seem to make much difference which party is in power, they all do the same thing. Then of course they raise everybody else's taxes to make up for the give away. The problem is the tax code no matter who writes it - they're all trying to buy votes. As far as corporations are concerned, I'd give them a flat, much smaller, tax rate and take back all the special exemptions and give aways. Everybody pays at the same rate and doesn't get to write anything off. The only problem with my plan is that the next batch of pols elected, from either party, will start the whole thing all over again.

One of the great things the EU has done is to forbid the members states to give any kind of support to individual companies. If a government decides to give a taxbreak or a subsidy to a company, it must provide it to the complete branch of industry. And even then the EU investigates it completely to ensure the rulings are perfectly equal for everyone. The incentive to ask for handouts is much lower if you know your competitor will get the exact same deal as you. Of course there is still protectionism and favouritism in the EU, but you do not see the shameless bidding wars like those between US states vying for a factory.

If the UK leaves the European Union, one wonders how fast Cameron hands over billions to his CEO-Friends from the City.

EDIT: Here you can read it better explained than I did. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/stat.../index_en.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

?? 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.

---

Technically you're not forcing them, but if they want to eat or pay the rent while they search for a new job you're not giving them much choice are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Technically you're not forcing them, but if they want to eat or pay the rent while they search for a new job you're not giving them much choice are you?

---

They have a definite choice. Fend for themselves or do some sort of labor in return for food, lodging and healthcare while they look for a suitable position. In what world is that akin to slavery? By the standard you've brought up, everyone with a job they do for the money and not because they love it is one short step from slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

They have a definite choice. Fend for themselves or do some sort of labor in return for food, lodging and healthcare while they look for a suitable position. In what world is that akin to slavery? By the standard you've brought up, everyone with a job they do for the money and not because they love it is one short step from slavery.

---

As I say, not much of a choice. Homelessness or forced labour.

What type of labour are you going to have them do exactly?

It would be more beneficial to the individual if in order to receive their benefits they had to attend workshops that gave advice on how to improve their C.V and how to approach job applications and interviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

As I say, not much of a choice. Homelessness or forced labour.

---

I think the point you are missing is that really for most this is a choice all of us have to make. How many people do you know that would continue to go to work if it didn't provide wages?

Nobody is forced to work
BUT if it was work and earn money to feed oneself and provide a home OR dont work ,and NO handouts ,then why would you not want to work ?
We have the situation where people will NOT take a job ,as it does not pay as much as dole and sitting on your arse all day is the chosen route taken .We all make a choice in life ,whether we work for ourselves as Self Employed,or have an Employer ,of not to work and life on the dole .IF i was unemployed I gamble that within 5 days ,if not sooner I would have found work .
Just as a matter of interest Jon how long do YOU think people should be allowed to claim unemployment benefit ? And i dont expect a silly answer Like" until they find a job "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by driveace

We have the situation where people will NOT take a job ,as it does not pay as much as dole and sitting on your arse all day is the chosen route taken .

---

I common myth. What we have is a situation where people needlessly like to blame and vilify the most vulnerable people in society.

Job Seekers Allowance = £72.50 per week

Full time work on minimum wage = £260 per week


As to how long you can claim your dole? Well it should depend on how long you were previously employed for and how much you put into the system.

There was a story today about an electrician in Glasgow made redundant but then told he needed to go back to the same company and basically do his old job in order to receive job seekers allowance.

What a surprise that those expressing right-wing opinions in this thread should either be (a) inarticulate or (b) American.

It is striking how spectacularly ignorant Americans are whenever they come to (try to) discuss matters relating to a country that's not their own, whereas others' opinions of America are generally far more informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

There was a story today about an electrician in Glasgow made redundant but then told he needed to go back to the same company and basically do his old job in order to receive job seekers allowance.

---

It was appalling. This is what this government wants, despite its claims to desire 'social mobility' and the like. Same old Tories, with an emasculated coalition party toeing the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What a surprise that those expressing right-wing opinions in this thread should either be (a) inarticulate or (b) American.

It is striking how spectacularly ignorant Americans are whenever they come to (try to) discuss matters relating to a country that's not their own, whereas others' opinions of America are generally far more informed.

---

At least one of those Europeans expressing opinions on American matters generally have shown themselves ignorant across the board. Perhaps they should take the personal insults and insert them in the same orifice where their head resides.

Everyone is permitted to give their opinion here and should not be derided for doing so. Unless they disagree with me of course :D

Really? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

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...
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:


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 CEO

---

how did you vote on 591 and 594 ??

'New EU members add £5bn to UK says research'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

'New EU members add £5bn to UK says research'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

---

That's only a certain portion of the immigrants, using the select portion they call the European Economic Area.

From the same link:

"The study also said immigrants from the wider European Economic Area - the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - had made a positive financial contribution to the UK.

It found that:

EEA immigrants had made a fiscal contribution of £4.4bn between 1995 and 2011, non-EEA immigrants had made a negative net contribution of £118bn, and British people had made a negative net contribution of £591bn

More recently, between 2001 and 2011, European arrivals contributed £20bn and those from outside Europe £5bn

Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than British people to receive state benefits or tax credits, and 7% less likely to live in social housing"


That demographic might have trouble fitting in, as they are contributing, where the immigrants from other countries and the British people have negative contributions. Maybe the best way to fix the UK is to kick the British out? :)

IMO none of the numbers help much without breaking it down to per year, per capita type format.

The media have been rerunning the UCL figures saying that immigrants from EU countries have made a net contribution to the UKs economy .
But as these figures came from exactly the same "Academics " who predicted that there would only be about 13000 Poles come here to work when Poland joined the EU , it is not surprising that the figures are disputed .

But this time even the BBC admitted the that the total cost to the country of all immigration was over £120 Billion .

So , although the loony left will no doubt still try to claim that immigration is good , Labour,s plan to fill the place up with immigrants has cost every man , woman & child here over £2000 so far & is still rising .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

But this time even the BBC admitted the that the total cost to the country of all immigration was over £120 Billion .
.

---

I don't get this. Immigrants work so they pay taxes and insurance fees to get benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

The media have been rerunning the UCL figures saying that immigrants from EU countries have made a net contribution to the UKs economy .
But as these figures came from exactly the same "Academics " who predicted that there would only be about 13000 Poles come here to work when Poland joined the EU , it is not surprising that the figures are disputed .

But this time even the BBC admitted the that the total cost to the country of all immigration was over £120 Billion .

So , although the loony left will no doubt still try to claim that immigration is good , Labour,s plan to fill the place up with immigrants has cost every man , woman & child here over £2000 so far & is still rising .

---

What has it got to do with the 'looney left'? Surely free movement of people as a part of a free market should be a trait of the economic right?

It's a shame that the data totally contradicts your noise.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...fects2_464.gif


But then again the BBC didn't report on this fella:

https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/...a3&oe=54E82272

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html

This headline is not that difficult to understand . And even the BBC is saying the same thing , but deliberately making it a bit more obscure so as not to annoy its Labour party bosses .
But as I said , the left wing will totally ignore anything they don,t want to hear .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html

This headline is not that difficult to understand . And even the BBC is saying the same thing , but deliberately making it a bit more obscure so as not to annoy its Labour party bosses .
But as I said , the left wing will totally ignore anything they don,t want to hear .

---

the second paragraph reads "The major academic study also found, however, that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period."...
Now carry on whinging about loony left media, EU immigration, miscalculation of the amount of poles, and totally ignoring what you don't want to hear :laugh:

Meanwhile....

Quote:

---

Pepsi, IKEA, FedEx and 340 other international companies have secured secret deals from Luxembourg, allowing many of them to slash their global tax bills while maintaining little presence in the tiny European duchy, leaked documents show.

These companies appear to have channeled hundreds of billions of dollars through Luxembourg and saved billions of dollars in taxes, according to a review of nearly 28,000 pages of confidential documents conducted by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and a team of more than 80 journalists from 26 countries.

---

Source: http://www.icij.org/project/luxembou...als-luxembourg

Yet its the immigrants that rob our countries, right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html

This headline is not that difficult to understand . And even the BBC is saying the same thing , but deliberately making it a bit more obscure so as not to annoy its Labour party bosses .
But as I said , the left wing will totally ignore anything they don,t want to hear .

---

So the Torygraph is more balanced?? :confused:

What the Torygraph has done is taken the set of figures in the study from 1995-2011. This addresses the contributions of all immigrants, no matter when they arrived in the UK. And per head they cost about the same as 'native' Britons. For example, an immigrant who arrived in the 1960s could have contributed for 35 years, but from 1995 they might have made a negative contribution as they have now retired.

They could have had a headline that shouted British cost Britain £600bn. But no, they focus on picking on the easier target so they can cause outrage amongst the usual reactionary Tory/UKIP voter.

The other figures are from 2001-2011 and they only look at the contributions of new immigrants that have arrived in the UK during that period. The report shows that new immigrants during this period have made a contribution.

A recent public opinion poll on " IS IMMIGRATION GOOD FOR BRITAIN " had an overwhelming [ 95% ] no vote .
And with prominent left wingers now admitting it has been a disaster it is not surprising that the Labour party,s propaganda activists are desperately putting out all sorts of lies to try to regain some public confidence .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3IDZB9rUq
Watch how quick the left wing lot claim this cannot be true because it was in the MAIL.
The EU has even been paying for internet trolls to go onto social media sites to try to boost its socialist agenda [ they paid for the UCL paper ] .

So I would say to everybody , " Don,t believe what these trolls & the biased parts of the mainstream media try to tell you , but find out the real truth from some unbiased sources ."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

So the Torygraph is more balanced?? :confused:

What the Torygraph has done is taken the set of figures in the study from 1995-2011. This addresses the contributions of all immigrants, no matter when they arrived in the UK. And per head they cost about the same as 'native' Britons. For example, an immigrant who arrived in the 1960s could have contributed for 35 years, but from 1995 they might have made a negative contribution as they have now retired.

They could have had a headline that shouted British cost Britain £600bn. But no, they focus on picking on the easier target so they can cause outrage amongst the usual reactionary Tory/UKIP voter.

The other figures are from 2001-2011 and they only look at the contributions of new immigrants that have arrived in the UK during that period. The report shows that new immigrants during this period have made a contribution.

---

It is very noticeable that you could not bring yourself to mention the part of the BBC report that says that ALL immigrants since 1995 have cost the country £118 Billion .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

It is very noticeable that you could not bring yourself to mention the part of the BBC report that says that ALL immigrants since 1995 have cost the country £118 Billion .

---

I deliberately didn't say that because it was already said in the headline of the article you posted. My point was that 'native' Britons have cost just as much per head as immigrants over the same period, so the fact immigrants have cost £118bn is irrelevant to the argument, i.e., it doesn't matter if you are 'native' or an immigrant you've probably made a net negative contribution.

If you had an agenda against facial hair the data would also probably show that people with moustaches have cost £xxbn over the same period......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What a surprise that those expressing right-wing opinions in this thread should either be (a) inarticulate or (b) American.

It is striking how spectacularly ignorant Americans are whenever they come to (try to) discuss matters relating to a country that's not their own, whereas others' opinions of America are generally far more informed.

---

Imagine the same trying to discuss their own country.. In America men talking is all about "winning the debate" and that means never ever ever admitting you don't know everything...as we see is the norm here...

There is no reason to believe that they are somehow crisp, clear, detaild and careful thinkers on one thing and appallingly ignorant on another..

Sloppy is as sloppy does. Or sumpin.

So Cameron has come back from Brussels with a 'deal' that will give the UK a special status in Europe. Most senior Tories seem set on leaving the EU so Boris has decided he wants to leave as well.

Leaving the EU is a real prospect now. And it is likely that we will leave because the public thinks immigration is too high, rather than an informed choice based on the economic arguments.

In a years time the UK could be outside the EU with Boris as PM and Trump could be running America :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

In a years time the UK could be outside the EU with Boris as PM and Trump could be running America :s

---

A year ago, it was still technically possible for Boris to run for President of the US as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-passport.html
Boris Johnson is to renounce his US citizenship, removing a potential obstacle to becoming Prime Minister.
The London mayor has dual nationality as he was born in New York - but has now revealed he wants to hand back his American passport.
- The Telegraph, 14th Feb 2015

Well as we only export 6% of our goods to other EU countries,and the other 94% exported to other countries carry a levy imposed by the EU making our goods dearer.Looks like it's goodbye to the little people like Merkel ( who won't get elected again ,upsetting all the Germans with her letting the 1.1 millions people in ,130,000 of which have gone missing) Hollande,Tusk,and Junker. And be Great Britain again .We can build lots of new schools and hospitals with the £356 million that we save every week ,and NATO and the Americans keep us safe not the EU ! Go on guys shoot me down again !

I for one am not shooting you down. Vote to leave and leave. Everyone is making too much fuss over this. It's getting tiresome. Britain is anyway barely in the EU and is rarely constructive in any way. I wonder if Scotland leaves too. I hope they stay since they seem to be less self-deluded.

If it helps any, we'll be happy to send Trump over to work for either side. So long as you keep him after that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by driveace

Well as we only export 6% of our goods to other EU countries,and the other 94% exported to other countries carry a levy imposed by the EU making our goods dearer.Looks like it's goodbye to the little people like Merkel ( who won't get elected again ,upsetting all the Germans with her letting the 1.1 millions people in ,130,000 of which have gone missing) Hollande,Tusk,and Junker. And be Great Britain again .We can build lots of new schools and hospitals with the £356 million that we save every week ,and NATO and the Americans keep us safe not the EU ! Go on guys shoot me down again !

---

6%?

We export about 45% of our goods to the EU.....

I can't see any real advantages to gain from leaving the EU.

Yes, it would be nice if we could continue to trade with the EU but have full control of our borders and not have to contribute to the EU budget. But that is never going to happen.

If we leave and don't get a free trade agreement then it will be a disaster for the UK and bad news for the EU.

If we leave and do get a trade agreement we will still have to contribute to the EU budget, we will probably still have free movement of people, we will still have to comply with EU regulations. But we won't have any MEPs and lose a lot of our influence.

Norway is seen as a model of what the UK could be like but they still have open borders with the EU, still comply with 75% of EU legislation, still contribute over £100 per head to the budget (compared with £125 per head in the UK). The only reason they haven't joined is to keep their fishing industry happy.

You may not see the advantages now but you'll understand in the future when Utopia will be just an archaic word for Britain. The idea is simple (and the solution obvious). All of Britain's problems are caused by just one group of people, the rest of the world. I also recommend building a big wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

6%?

We export about 45% of our goods to the EU.....

---

Are you going to bother with that? There's a very deep understanding of a complex issue there. It's all about adding and subtracting. You subtract here, you add there, everything else will be just the same. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I can't see any real advantages to gain from leaving the EU.

---

Not being governed by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats is an advantage in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Not being governed by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats is an advantage in my view.

---

In how many countries are the members of the government actually elected? Also interesting how foreign has an obvious negative connotation for you. That is ridiculous. Are you really satisfied with your perpetually 'elected' not foreign president (if your location is real)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

In how many countries are the members of the government actually elected? Also interesting how foreign has an obvious negative connotation for you. That is ridiculous. Are you really satisfied with your perpetually 'elected' not foreign president (if your location is real)?

---

Hit back with an argument about my own country, which is not the subject of this discussion, wouldn't you? ;)

The answer about members of the government being elected is they are elected in very few countries if any. It is the parliamentarians who are elected and who the government members report to. The thing about EU is that the balance of powers there is heavily skewed towards the executive branch. EU is effectively controlled by the European Commission, which is a law upon itself and is not really accountable to anybody. The unaccountability of the government is a big issue in my country and that's exactly where I'm coming from.

You are also apt at finding negativity where there is none. "Foreign" in this case means "unaccountable to local people", that's it. "Foreign" per se might be as good as it gets, but in the context of governance, governing bodies have to be accountable to their constituencies. The European Commission is clearly not accountable to the voters of any given EU country. This situation is not negative or positive. It is just unacceptable.

BTW, if I may, what is the income tax rate that you pay in your country?