Crosswords2 mins ago
Is Britain the daftest country in the world?
Do not put a link at the start of a question!
I would be interested to hear your views on
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=400309&in_page_i d=1770
I would be interested to hear your views on
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=400309&in_page_i d=1770
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by edwardian. 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.
Interesting Stats for you:
Amount that the Daily Mail think this has cost the tax payer:
�45 Million
Amount that the government lost on inheritance tax as the Late Lord Rothermere was a tax exile
�600 Million
* for those who don't know - the Late Lord Rothermere owned 60% of the Daily Mail via a Bermuda company and it is now owned by his son - Lord Rothermere via a Jersey trust
Amount that the Daily Mail think this has cost the tax payer:
�45 Million
Amount that the government lost on inheritance tax as the Late Lord Rothermere was a tax exile
�600 Million
* for those who don't know - the Late Lord Rothermere owned 60% of the Daily Mail via a Bermuda company and it is now owned by his son - Lord Rothermere via a Jersey trust
Any nation which pays its people a �benefit� simply because they have children is daft. This is especially so if the country:
- is currently short of housing
- suffers huge energy price rises because of shortages
- is short of fresh water in many of its most populated areas
- suffers alarming road congestion
- has public transport (where it exists) that is barely able to cope
- has huge social problems in many areas, much of it (arguably) caused by over-population
- is experiencing declining standards in education (but not exam successes)
- has a state health service which is barely able to cope
- has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe
- has one million people registered as unemployed (and many more out of work but not so registered)
As if the country needs to manifest its foolishness even further, it feels the need to provide these same benefits to people who have never contributed (and in many cases are never likely to contribute) to the pot from which the funds are drawn. These same people, of course, will contribute further to the original problems which illustrated the country�s foolishness.
The argument that newcomers are necessary to the well-being of the country and that they contribute more than they collect is specious. We have 1m of our "own" unemployed. If they are unwilling to get off their backsides to do some useful work the answer is to make life for them and their families as uncomfortable as possible, not to continue paying them to do nothing and ship in others.
We now have the spectacle of Eastern European workers without jobs sleeping rough in Central London. The authorities are considering paying them to return to their homelands. Many of those that do work and pay tax send up to 90% of their net salary �back home� thus benefiting the economy of this country not a jot. It is about time the
- is currently short of housing
- suffers huge energy price rises because of shortages
- is short of fresh water in many of its most populated areas
- suffers alarming road congestion
- has public transport (where it exists) that is barely able to cope
- has huge social problems in many areas, much of it (arguably) caused by over-population
- is experiencing declining standards in education (but not exam successes)
- has a state health service which is barely able to cope
- has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Western Europe
- has one million people registered as unemployed (and many more out of work but not so registered)
As if the country needs to manifest its foolishness even further, it feels the need to provide these same benefits to people who have never contributed (and in many cases are never likely to contribute) to the pot from which the funds are drawn. These same people, of course, will contribute further to the original problems which illustrated the country�s foolishness.
The argument that newcomers are necessary to the well-being of the country and that they contribute more than they collect is specious. We have 1m of our "own" unemployed. If they are unwilling to get off their backsides to do some useful work the answer is to make life for them and their families as uncomfortable as possible, not to continue paying them to do nothing and ship in others.
We now have the spectacle of Eastern European workers without jobs sleeping rough in Central London. The authorities are considering paying them to return to their homelands. Many of those that do work and pay tax send up to 90% of their net salary �back home� thus benefiting the economy of this country not a jot. It is about time the
-- answer removed --
I agree that claiming money for children not present in this country is quite scandalous, as is the enclosed article about how little the Rolling Stones have paid in British taxes while retaining the benefits of being British citizens.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice/income -tax/article.html?in_article_id=411323&in_page _id=77
Hard working homeowners seem to get stuffed every which way apparently, so there's something for socialists and tories to unite about- sort out the tax and benefit system somebody-please!!!
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice/income -tax/article.html?in_article_id=411323&in_page _id=77
Hard working homeowners seem to get stuffed every which way apparently, so there's something for socialists and tories to unite about- sort out the tax and benefit system somebody-please!!!
I glad you found my conclusions interesting, vic. Perhaps I should explain why I stand by what I said.
We are told that most of these newcomers do menial jobs which probably attract no more than the minimum wage (about �200 a week, �10,000pa). The very reason they are vital to the country, we are told, is that they will do the sort of low-paid jobs which cosseted Brits will not get out of bed for.
Income Tax and National Insurance on this sum (assuming no extraordinary allowances are claimed) come to about �1,500 pa. The minimum Working Tax Credit for people on low incomes is �1,665 pa. Net benefit to the Exchequer �Nil.
Those with dependants still in their country of origin send most of the money they earn �home� (something they readily admit themselves). Net benefit to the exchequer and the economy � very little.
On the minus side we have housing (they will almost certainly be eligible for Housing Benefit and also pay little or no Council Tax because of their low income). They obviously need healthcare, will be eligible for a state pension (for which they have contributed little or nothing), and receive free dental treatment and prescriptions (again because of their low income). Any children they bring here or have whilst they are here will require education. And so on.
We are always urged by the Guardian readers to take what we read in the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt. And so I do. I check out the figures, do a few sums and arrive at my own conclusions. I urge you to do the same and not to be hoodwinked into believing that this is the only way.
We are told that most of these newcomers do menial jobs which probably attract no more than the minimum wage (about �200 a week, �10,000pa). The very reason they are vital to the country, we are told, is that they will do the sort of low-paid jobs which cosseted Brits will not get out of bed for.
Income Tax and National Insurance on this sum (assuming no extraordinary allowances are claimed) come to about �1,500 pa. The minimum Working Tax Credit for people on low incomes is �1,665 pa. Net benefit to the Exchequer �Nil.
Those with dependants still in their country of origin send most of the money they earn �home� (something they readily admit themselves). Net benefit to the exchequer and the economy � very little.
On the minus side we have housing (they will almost certainly be eligible for Housing Benefit and also pay little or no Council Tax because of their low income). They obviously need healthcare, will be eligible for a state pension (for which they have contributed little or nothing), and receive free dental treatment and prescriptions (again because of their low income). Any children they bring here or have whilst they are here will require education. And so on.
We are always urged by the Guardian readers to take what we read in the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt. And so I do. I check out the figures, do a few sums and arrive at my own conclusions. I urge you to do the same and not to be hoodwinked into believing that this is the only way.
Oneeyedvic raises a point that everyone seems to conveniently miss.
Eastern Europeans - the ones serving in bars, working on building sites and employed as nurses and cleaners...are paying income tax and national insurance.
Is it me, or is everyone ignoring this fact?
If they come here and undercut salaries of Brits, well that's just tough. It's called capitalism. It's called a free market, and it's how British industry keeps prices down.
Think about that the next time you're in Sainsburys, wondering why strawberries are cheaper this year than they were last year.
Blaming immigrants for our woes is so 1972.
Eastern Europeans - the ones serving in bars, working on building sites and employed as nurses and cleaners...are paying income tax and national insurance.
Is it me, or is everyone ignoring this fact?
If they come here and undercut salaries of Brits, well that's just tough. It's called capitalism. It's called a free market, and it's how British industry keeps prices down.
Think about that the next time you're in Sainsburys, wondering why strawberries are cheaper this year than they were last year.
Blaming immigrants for our woes is so 1972.
JudgeJ
Our messages crossed each other.
You too raise a very valid point re: tax levels and income.
However, do you not accept that the numbers of immigrants who work here have an affect on prices? They demand lower salaries which (in theory) contribute to more competitive prices in the shops.
As a whinging lefty, it goes against all my principles to see workers earning poor wages, but I honestly thought that this would be something positively welcomed by people who lean to the right.
Our messages crossed each other.
You too raise a very valid point re: tax levels and income.
However, do you not accept that the numbers of immigrants who work here have an affect on prices? They demand lower salaries which (in theory) contribute to more competitive prices in the shops.
As a whinging lefty, it goes against all my principles to see workers earning poor wages, but I honestly thought that this would be something positively welcomed by people who lean to the right.
The issue is not so much the level of pay that newcomers are prepared to work for. It is simply that if we have one million people already sitting on their backsides doing nothing we should get them out of the pubs and betting shops and into work before we �find it imperative� to import more people. It is clear that this country is already over populated in many areas. Paying people to do nothing whilst importing even more people to do the work that they �will not do� is utter lunacy.
The economic arguments are a different matter entirely. The reason employers are keen to have a large pool of people willing to work for low pay (the Brits long since having realised that benefits are a better option) is that they can continue to run their businesses at low cost.. The balance (to take their employees� income to a subsistence level) is met by the taxpayer. The government is complicit in this strategy because it gives them an electorate that feels beholden to them for their very existence.
Immigrant labour may well keep down the cost of a box of strawberries. However, it does not keep down the cost of fuel, energy and tax which are what most people spend most of their money on. If you think, sp1814, that we are operating a free market and the results are �tough� think again. It is a false market because low-paid workers are being subsidised by higher-earning taxpayers.
If this country wants to reduce the standard of living of its workers to that of Eastern European countries (whilst companies make ever larger profits as a result) then the electorate should be told that this is the strategy. They can then give up work (leaving all their jobs for the Poles), claim benefits, and buy shares in low cost-base companies with the proceeds. Let�s see how the economy fares then.
The economic arguments are a different matter entirely. The reason employers are keen to have a large pool of people willing to work for low pay (the Brits long since having realised that benefits are a better option) is that they can continue to run their businesses at low cost.. The balance (to take their employees� income to a subsistence level) is met by the taxpayer. The government is complicit in this strategy because it gives them an electorate that feels beholden to them for their very existence.
Immigrant labour may well keep down the cost of a box of strawberries. However, it does not keep down the cost of fuel, energy and tax which are what most people spend most of their money on. If you think, sp1814, that we are operating a free market and the results are �tough� think again. It is a false market because low-paid workers are being subsidised by higher-earning taxpayers.
If this country wants to reduce the standard of living of its workers to that of Eastern European countries (whilst companies make ever larger profits as a result) then the electorate should be told that this is the strategy. They can then give up work (leaving all their jobs for the Poles), claim benefits, and buy shares in low cost-base companies with the proceeds. Let�s see how the economy fares then.
Again...you make some valid points.
I absoluetly agree that levels of unemployment are still too high and that there is a subset of worker who will never work because the benefit system makes it more attractive not (where a combination of family credit, unemployment benefits etc make it more economically to stay at home).
However, wouldn't you also agree that the biggest cost to any business is labour (small 'L')? Therefore, lower wages *should* lead to lower product prices, which in turn should lead to lower inflation, which benefits us all.
The point about wages vs benefits is also valid, but we'd need to see figures showing that the new migrants are actually taking out of the system more than they're contributing, albeit indirectly.
I absoluetly agree that levels of unemployment are still too high and that there is a subset of worker who will never work because the benefit system makes it more attractive not (where a combination of family credit, unemployment benefits etc make it more economically to stay at home).
However, wouldn't you also agree that the biggest cost to any business is labour (small 'L')? Therefore, lower wages *should* lead to lower product prices, which in turn should lead to lower inflation, which benefits us all.
The point about wages vs benefits is also valid, but we'd need to see figures showing that the new migrants are actually taking out of the system more than they're contributing, albeit indirectly.
Latest Posts
Football4 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank17 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.