Immigration and Asylum (5 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
This was in 2016, so I can accept a lot of changes to the system have happened since then. I was still pretty sure though that you had to provide evidence of what you were doing to find work.

To reiterate though, the amount is not even £5k per year. Nobody can live in luxury off that.
Click to expand...

So there are no other benefits? Housing costs, energy etc?
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Adults can support themselves, children can’t. They also don’t receive money directly from the government.

I can’t believe you thought that was a good question.
Click to expand...
The issue is that you believe that society can be conveniently divided into ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ categories, often defined by characteristics that aren’t necessarily predictive of their economic status (i.e. whether they were born in this country) and often splitting hairs over what kinds of government expenditures should be taken into account (welfare payments bad, free schooling good etc).

Like most topics on here, everyone agrees with the central point that our welfare system (or asylum system, or healthcare system etc) is in need of reform. But the attempts to hijack the process in the name of advancing pet projects on immigration etc mean we just go round in circles until we’ve all been bludgeoned into submission by your extended essays.
 
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Ahh the doff capping plebory of regurgitating the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. How do you even measure that for starters. You can’t measure public sector work in terms of turnover or profit or production capabilities etc etc. Public sector work is not measurable by the same terms and vice versa. It’s a lazy trope at best. Where’s the evidence other than a few right wing politicians and political commentators repeating it enough for the plebs to believe it.


Myth 5: The private sector is more efficient than the public sector

newint.org newint.org
 
Captain Dart

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176 said:
Ahh the doff capping plebory of regurgitating the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. How do you even measure that for starters. You can’t measure public sector work in terms of turnover or profit or production capabilities etc etc. Public sector work is not measurable by the same terms and vice versa. It’s a lazy trope at best. Where’s the evidence other than a few right wing politicians and political commentators repeating it enough for the plebs to believe it.


Myth 5: The private sector is more efficient than the public sector

newint.org newint.org
Click to expand...
Yeah we can trust whatever claims the European Federation of Public Service Unions make. 😂
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
SBT said:
The issue is that you believe that society can be conveniently divided into ‘productive’ and ‘unproductive’ categories, often defined by characteristics that aren’t necessarily predictive of their economic status (i.e. whether they were born in this country) and often splitting hairs over what kinds of government expenditures should be taken into account (welfare payments bad, free schooling good etc).

Like most topics on here, everyone agrees with the central point that our welfare system (or asylum system, or healthcare system etc) is in need of reform. But the attempts to hijack the process in the name of advancing pet projects on immigration etc mean we just go round in circles until we’ve all been bludgeoned into submission by your extended essays.
Click to expand...

It’s not a belief, it’s a fact and it’s why we have progressive taxation.

Immigration status is actually taken into account. The Beveridge Report in 1942 specifically mentions UK citizens. It was through numerous EU treaties that extends this to EU citizens as a whole and ILR as we know it today was set up in 2003. Net migration has increased significantly from then and was assumed a low % of migrants would be self-sufficient and net-tax contributors, that’s no longer the case. 1/6 UC claimants being foreign is clearly a big problem. In 2022, payments to foreigners on UC was £6bn, surpassed £10bn in 2024 and projected to be £12bn this year…

With respect, it’s you that was trying to play silly games and ended up looking silly when it become apparent you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) distinguish public services and welfare handouts. The clues are in the names; National Health Service, Personal Independence Payment, Universal Credit.

One final point, if yourself and others articulate “the need” for reform on immigration or welfare and yet, offer no ideas, decry any suggestions made and use straw man arguments or ask stupid questions like ‘why are the elderly/children not classed as “unproductive” and not working age adults?’ At best, you’re playing a fool…
 
Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
It’s not a belief, it’s a fact and it’s why we have progressive taxation.

Immigration status is actually taken into account. The Beveridge Report in 1942 specifically mentions UK citizens. It was through numerous EU treaties that extends this to EU citizens as a whole and ILR as we know it today was set up in 2003. Net migration has increased significantly from then and was assumed a low % of migrants would be self-sufficient and net-tax contributors, that’s no longer the case. 1/6 UC claimants being foreign is clearly a big problem. In 2022, payments to foreigners on UC was £6bn, surpassed £10bn in 2024 and projected to be £12bn this year…

With respect, it’s you that was trying to play silly games and ended up looking silly when it become apparent you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) distinguish public services and welfare handouts. The clues are in the names; National Health Service, Personal Independence Payment, Universal Credit.

One final point, if yourself and others articulate “the need” for reform on immigration or welfare and yet, offer no ideas, decry any suggestions made and use straw man arguments or ask stupid questions like ‘why are the elderly/children not classed as “unproductive” and not working age adults?’ At best, you’re playing a fool…
Click to expand...

You got it in the last line.

Not sure why you bother to keep engaging.
 
Bugsy

Bugsy

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
It’s not a belief, it’s a fact and it’s why we have progressive taxation.

Immigration status is actually taken into account. The Beveridge Report in 1942 specifically mentions UK citizens. It was through numerous EU treaties that extends this to EU citizens as a whole and ILR as we know it today was set up in 2003. Net migration has increased significantly from then and was assumed a low % of migrants would be self-sufficient and net-tax contributors, that’s no longer the case. 1/6 UC claimants being foreign is clearly a big problem. In 2022, payments to foreigners on UC was £6bn, surpassed £10bn in 2024 and projected to be £12bn this year…

With respect, it’s you that was trying to play silly games and ended up looking silly when it become apparent you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) distinguish public services and welfare handouts. The clues are in the names; National Health Service, Personal Independence Payment, Universal Credit.

One final point, if yourself and others articulate “the need” for reform on immigration or welfare and yet, offer no ideas, decry any suggestions made and use straw man arguments or ask stupid questions like ‘why are the elderly/children not classed as “unproductive” and not working age adults?’ At best, you’re playing a fool…
Click to expand...
Some of those suggestions included suspending all benefit payments if someone is unemployed for too long and turning the £25/week child benefit payment into a voucher. If there were others I missed, let’s discuss them, but the dialogue is all about being punitive on people for being unemployed as though it’s a lifestyle choice. That’s where I take issue unless you’ve got empirical rather than anecdotal evidence. Take places where there really is a lack of work/opportunity and you’re denying people a social safety net for reasons beyond their control. There is nobody here who thinks unemployment is or should be more attractive than work or study.

We spoke about the pension too which, again, is the most expensive benefit for the state to provide. Funnily enough I think the American social security system is the model to follow on that one. To me anyway solving the problem of how we fund state pensions is the most pressing issue for the welfare bill and the more interesting one to discuss in the context of shifting age demographics.
 
Bugsy

Bugsy

Well-Known Member
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top