Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Migrant's Benefits
Just heard 'mumbling' Ken Clarke arguing against benefit reform for immigrants, 'Let's not forget how this could have negative bearing on the 2million UK citizens working and living in Europe'.
I don't see how it could. It might have a negative effect on the 20,000 UK citizens claiming benefits in Europe. (I've excluded the ones in Ireland) but that's a different matter, imo. And frankly, personally, I don't care.
I don't see how it could. It might have a negative effect on the 20,000 UK citizens claiming benefits in Europe. (I've excluded the ones in Ireland) but that's a different matter, imo. And frankly, personally, I don't care.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Svejk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Being the euro maniac that that he is he only supports the eussr dictate. ..he's just another traitor that is more than happy to see us under eussr domination...UK citizens ? pah...He couldn't care less.
Stop every penny they get, tell the eussr to shove it...about time we decided what's legal and what isn't in our country...
Stop every penny they get, tell the eussr to shove it...about time we decided what's legal and what isn't in our country...
Maybe this is another reason why we should move to s system of earning benefits through either past contributions or 'credits' given (in the same way as NI credits can be given in some cases when you are not working)- that way we could show we are treating migrants in the same way as our own people withr egard to benefits
If you were working abroad and lost your job, you'd come home, wouldn't you. And if you moved abroad for better benefits, and curiously they're virtually all in countries with better benefits, then I won't lose any sleep over you being sent home.
What gets me is Clarke trying to conflate the retirees/successful people who have chosen to live abroad in his 'scaremongering'.
What gets me is Clarke trying to conflate the retirees/successful people who have chosen to live abroad in his 'scaremongering'.
Until benefits are harmonised across the failing experiment that is the EU, they should be paid at the rate of the country of origin with the rider that, when the going gets tough and immigrants find themselves unable to live here, HMG will fund a Ryanair flight to the airport nearest to their home town and flag their passports as unable to support themselves so are therefore barred from re-entry.
The majority of the benefits it seems being claimed are IN WORK benefits, hardly surprisingly, as many migrants are in lower paid jobs. And as those are being slashed anyway, its debatable what effect it would have financially
I don't often agree with Melanie Phillips, but she was quite right to point out that this is not likely to affect the numbers of immigrants anyway, given that most if not all don't come here to claim benefits but to work.
It beats me why the benefits issue cannot be addressed by a system of inter-government paybacks
But then you remember that this whole thing is a smokescreen in a pretty futile attempt to pacify Tory eurosceptics and keep the party together, and that the wretched EU referendum, when it comes, will not be decided on such issues, but on whether enough people in the UK feel securer and better off in the EU or out of it, regardless of a spat about a few Polish workers sending money home to their children,
I don't often agree with Melanie Phillips, but she was quite right to point out that this is not likely to affect the numbers of immigrants anyway, given that most if not all don't come here to claim benefits but to work.
It beats me why the benefits issue cannot be addressed by a system of inter-government paybacks
But then you remember that this whole thing is a smokescreen in a pretty futile attempt to pacify Tory eurosceptics and keep the party together, and that the wretched EU referendum, when it comes, will not be decided on such issues, but on whether enough people in the UK feel securer and better off in the EU or out of it, regardless of a spat about a few Polish workers sending money home to their children,
OG, raise the wage of the lowest paid in a company and all wages will increase pro rata, which means higher costs for the employer so he raises prices of the goods / services he provides. This will happen across the board so everyone's cost of living will rise.
Then people at the bottom of the salary scale won't have a living wage and so the cycle begins.
Then people at the bottom of the salary scale won't have a living wage and so the cycle begins.
Perhaps the answer is to reduce our benefits to the lowest paid int eh EU therefore eliminating the attraction of coming here to take them?
I have often thought that benefits should be paid at the rate of the country of origin (e.g a polish worker here receives the polish rate and a UK citizen in Poland would receive the UK rate)
I have often thought that benefits should be paid at the rate of the country of origin (e.g a polish worker here receives the polish rate and a UK citizen in Poland would receive the UK rate)
I don't believe that hc. One can keep differentials without simply moving everyone up the same amount. The secret is to offer reasonable steps for valid skills/talents and keep the overall cost to little more than the additional cost for the lower wage correction. Besides if someone presently on a higher salary thinks the lower paid are getting a better deal than they, then they are at liberty to go apply for a low paid position.
Can only state my experience. Went to France, income not huge but no benefits claimed and worked to restore house (this put money into the local community), do B&B and then taught (taught local villagers English for FREE). Submitted income to tax authorities, no tax payable but needed to pay a bit on URSSAF (basic state health insurance) which covered 'La basse' - up to me to take out private to cover the rest. NEVER claimed a thing from France, operated on the same principle as the French.
A few years ago the French had a flurry and decided that foreigners were draining their health service and at a stroke the declared that we could no longer claim La Basse if we were under retirement age (when that part is taken over by the UK on the basis of your NI contributions) and that all our health insurance needed to be private.
They later relented and told us that anyone paying in to their system for 5 (repeat FIVE) years would be accepted and so we were OK. Unfortunately, in the meantime a good friend committed suicide in despair because his wife needed medication which he would not be able to afford. He, too, had paid in according to his income (just as a Frenchman would have done). His 'early' retirement had been because he was a policeman and had had to leave early. This cut no ice.
I personally sat across the desk from a smirking fonctionnere - pushed proofs of my payments into the system in front of her and was told 'You may have the right to live here, but we don't have to help you'. I'd have been in real trouble if they hadn't changed to accepting people who had paid in for 5 years. But it was blatant racist discrimination, a French person paying in just same would not have had this problem.
What I'm saying is that it is, in my experience, all one way anyway. I simply don't believe the 20 thou. figure.
A few years ago the French had a flurry and decided that foreigners were draining their health service and at a stroke the declared that we could no longer claim La Basse if we were under retirement age (when that part is taken over by the UK on the basis of your NI contributions) and that all our health insurance needed to be private.
They later relented and told us that anyone paying in to their system for 5 (repeat FIVE) years would be accepted and so we were OK. Unfortunately, in the meantime a good friend committed suicide in despair because his wife needed medication which he would not be able to afford. He, too, had paid in according to his income (just as a Frenchman would have done). His 'early' retirement had been because he was a policeman and had had to leave early. This cut no ice.
I personally sat across the desk from a smirking fonctionnere - pushed proofs of my payments into the system in front of her and was told 'You may have the right to live here, but we don't have to help you'. I'd have been in real trouble if they hadn't changed to accepting people who had paid in for 5 years. But it was blatant racist discrimination, a French person paying in just same would not have had this problem.
What I'm saying is that it is, in my experience, all one way anyway. I simply don't believe the 20 thou. figure.
