UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[RYH64E]

Mr_B said:

RYH64E said:

Mr_B said:

Why should I have my benefits cut if I lost my job after 20 years of paying in to be equal to someone who has been and paid in nothing like as long ?

If I lost my job I'd get nothing other than contribution based Job seeker allowance for 6 months, then nothing. So under the current system my total, maximum claim would be <£2k. How much do you think you'd get?

With that can come housing benefit , council tax etc etc. I have claimed a few years back when I lost my job and wrote about it here. I got way more than 2K and could have milked it for 6 months easily, they were paying nearly all my private rent. There's much to be done on that kinda abuse, but on the basic idea of someone having work a large part of there life and never having claimed only to then being given the same as someone who has been here 5 mins , that is wrong. There is no harm at all that if you move to a vastly different country with vastly different benefits ( as per your UK /Romania analogy ) that you should recognise this and accept.

Despite very substantial contributions to the system, all I would get is 6 months JSA, no housing benefit, no council tax rebate, nothing. So a system where everybody got the same as I'm entitled to doesn't seem outrageous to me.

[Mr_B]

RYH64E said:

Mr_B said:

RYH64E said:

Mr_B said:

Why should I have my benefits cut if I lost my job after 20 years of paying in to be equal to someone who has been and paid in nothing like as long ?

If I lost my job I'd get nothing other than contribution based Job seeker allowance for 6 months, then nothing. So under the current system my total, maximum claim would be <£2k. How much do you think you'd get?

With that can come housing benefit , council tax etc etc. I have claimed a few years back when I lost my job and wrote about it here. I got way more than 2K and could have milked it for 6 months easily, they were paying nearly all my private rent. There's much to be done on that kinda abuse, but on the basic idea of someone having work a large part of there life and never having claimed only to then being given the same as someone who has been here 5 mins , that is wrong. There is no harm at all that if you move to a vastly different country with vastly different benefits ( as per your UK /Romania analogy ) that you should recognise this and accept.

Despite very substantial contributions to the system, all I would get is 6 months JSA, no housing benefit, no council tax rebate, nothing. So a system where everybody got the same as I'm entitled to doesn't seem outrageous to me.

Great, so turn up as self employed and get the same as someone who has paid in all their life ? No thanks. I don't feel to downgrade my entitlements to make immigrants feel more welcome. A sensible period of time or contributions isn't harming anyone or anything nasty.

[RYH64E]

Mr_B said:

Great, so turn up as self employed and get the same as someone who has paid in all their life ? No thanks. I don't feel to downgrade my entitlements to make immigrants feel more welcome. A sensible period of time or contributions isn't harming anyone or anything nasty.

I've paid all my life, I'm not an immigrant, yet I'm entitled to next to nothing in the UK. Is that fair?

Why should you get more than me? I've almost certainly paid far more into the system than you.

[brenflys777]

Zod said:

brenflys777 said:

Zod said:

K, let's talk about cutting the debt over the short term. Leaving aside the tiny foreign aid budget, what would you cut to reduce the debt, given we can't just rely on increased tax receipts from the return of growth? Really big cuts are need to make any dent in the debt, so I look forward to your answer.

Regardless of your background, if you think that the foreign aid budget is tiny, then I think you have lost touch with us ordinary people.

The foreign aid budget will eclipse the Policing budget for the whole of the UK next year.

Osborne says that £25bn permanent cuts are needed to tackle deficit. The foreign aid budget amounts to over half of that target, but has been declared off limits. This isn't conservative its disgusting.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29402844

Compare the foreign aid budget with the national debt. WOuld it make any significant difference? Why is it relevant to compare it with the Police budget? They are two entirely different items.

The problem with foreign aid is not that it is given, but to whom it is given and on what it is spent.

The target Osborne has given for permanent year on year cuts form next year is 25bn. Foreign aid payments are due to be over half that. That is a significant amount.

Why compare it to the Police budget - its an example because to ordinary people expecting the Police to protect my family, possessions and public safety is a significant concern. The fact that the foreign aid budget is higher than the UK policing costs shows this is not an insignificant amount. Its easy to dismiss 0.7% of GDP as being trivial, but comparison to spending on things that can make a big difference to ordinary people shows this is money that would change UK lives. How much do we spend on criminal rehabilitation? How much do we spend on jails? How much on retraining older workers who lose their jobs? All of those are important but not deemed worthy of protected or increased spending by this government.

I agree with your last point, but in addition to who and how it is spent, I think the amount is also a problem. Especially when it is ring fenced and increased at a time of supposed austerity.

[Mr_B]

RYH64E said:

Mr_B said:

Great, so turn up as self employed and get the same as someone who has paid in all their life ? No thanks. I don't feel to downgrade my entitlements to make immigrants feel more welcome. A sensible period of time or contributions isn't harming anyone or anything nasty.

I've paid all my life, I'm not an immigrant, yet I'm entitled to next to nothing in the UK. Is that fair?

Why should you get more than me? I've almost certainly paid far more into the system than you.

The level of what you get is a different debate. The idea of arriving one day in the UK as self employed and signing on to someone having worked all their life here is not a great one and not needed. As said, if you want to come and live here you aren't being oppressed in any way by being asked to contribute to the system. Have the debate on how long or what level of contribution that needs to be, but I don't feel the need to lower myself to make immigrants feel more happy. Same as if I up and move elsewhere. Their rules, my choice.

[Mrr T]

Mr_B said:

With that can come housing benefit , council tax etc etc. I have claimed a few years back when I lost my job and wrote about it here. I got way more than 2K and could have milked it for 6 months easily, they were paying nearly all my private rent. There's much to be done on that kinda abuse, but on the basic idea of someone having work a large part of there life and never having claimed only to then being given the same as someone who has been here 5 mins , that is wrong. There is no harm at all that if you move to a vastly different country with vastly different benefits ( as per your UK /Romania analogy ) that you should recognise this and accept.

The benefit available to an EU citizen seeking work in the UK are Job Seekers and if they have children Child Benefit. They cannot claim Housing Benefit until they have work. They can then also claim WFTC. However, the amount they can claim are minimal even on very low wages unless they have children.

[MGJohn]

Mrr T said:

Mr_B said:

With that can come housing benefit , council tax etc etc. I have claimed a few years back when I lost my job and wrote about it here. I got way more than 2K and could have milked it for 6 months easily, they were paying nearly all my private rent. There's much to be done on that kinda abuse, but on the basic idea of someone having work a large part of there life and never having claimed only to then being given the same as someone who has been here 5 mins , that is wrong. There is no harm at all that if you move to a vastly different country with vastly different benefits ( as per your UK /Romania analogy ) that you should recognise this and accept.

The benefit available to an EU citizen seeking work in the UK are Job Seekers and if they have children Child Benefit. They cannot claim Housing Benefit until they have work. They can then also claim WFTC. However, the amount they can claim are minimal even on very low wages unless they have children.

Yet another incentive to breed. Just the job! ...

Billions of FOREIGN AID FROM UK TAXPAYERS ~ not to be confused with mythical "Government" Money.

The only productively beneficial aid UK taxpayers provide should be contraceptives. Billions of them with multi-language "How to" easy to follow instructions included with every pack. All other "aid" even when monitored ( rare to non-existent ) only worsens the problems of the world.

[Yazar]

Mrr T said:

The benefit available to an EU citizen seeking work in the UK are Job Seekers and if they have children Child Benefit. They cannot claim Housing Benefit until they have work. They can then also claim WFTC. However, the amount they can claim are minimal even on very low wages unless they have children.

As per that program the other week where the Romanian dude had a fair bit of dental work and was bringing over his daughter who broker her leg, how about the free NHS? Or the government (tax-payer) funded charities who teach free english and all the other backdoor funding.

And what if they are in pseudo work. Say a job that happens to be 16 hours. Or a low paid job in a car wash. Or every Romanian 'self employed' big issue seller outside every Waitrose in the south east.

Would they be getting a large chunk of free cash from the government then?

[Mr_B]

Mrr T said:

Mr_B said:

With that can come housing benefit , council tax etc etc. I have claimed a few years back when I lost my job and wrote about it here. I got way more than 2K and could have milked it for 6 months easily, they were paying nearly all my private rent. There's much to be done on that kinda abuse, but on the basic idea of someone having work a large part of there life and never having claimed only to then being given the same as someone who has been here 5 mins , that is wrong. There is no harm at all that if you move to a vastly different country with vastly different benefits ( as per your UK /Romania analogy ) that you should recognise this and accept.

The benefit available to an EU citizen seeking work in the UK are Job Seekers and if they have children Child Benefit. They cannot claim Housing Benefit until they have work. They can then also claim WFTC. However, the amount they can claim are minimal even on very low wages unless they have children.

You've snipped and selected a part of a quote and making it appear what it isn't. It was in reply to the poster who said all he would get is job seekers and asked what I though I would get, hence the comment on housing benefit etc.
The basic idea of not watering down the benefits to me as someone who has paid in for a long time to fit someone who has just decided to turn up here is not unfair or nasty. I would argue it basic common sense that I would expect to apply to me if I moved some place. If another country had a massively better health care system and vastly more generous benefits payments, I wouldn't expect equal access to someone who had lived and worked their. What's so hard about their rules, your choice ?

Besides that, everyone seems to be running from the original comment about how making a level playing field was somehow going to do anything when everyone hear tells me benefits and the like account for next to nothing in the reasons why people come here or even making up the numbers that do claim.

[RYH64E]

Mr_B said:

The basic idea of not watering down the benefits to me as someone who has paid in for a long time to fit someone who has just decided to turn up here is not unfair or nasty.

Immigrants don't expect their benefits to be 'watered down', you don't expect your benefits to be 'watered down' because you've paid into the system, it's only a difference of degree. Immigrants have paid nothing into the system (yet), you've paid something (but probably not much), whereas those who pay the lions share of income tax have already seen their eligibility for any kind of benefits watered down to the point of virtual non-existence. But it's different when it's your entitlement we're discussing?

Edited by RYH64E on Thursday 5th March 14:33

[Mr_B]

RYH64E said:

Mr_B said:

The basic idea of not watering down the benefits to me as someone who has paid in for a long time to fit someone who has just decided to turn up here is not unfair or nasty.

Immigrants don't expect their benefits to be 'watered down', you don't expect your benefits to be 'watered down' because you've paid into the system, it's only a difference of degree. Immigrants have paid nothing into the system (yet), you've paid something (but probably not much), whereas those who pay the lions share of income tax have already seen their eligibility for any kind of benefits watered down to the point of virtual non-existence. But it's different when it's your entitlement we're discussing?

Edited by RYH64E on Thursday 5th March 14:33

You are arguing several different things in all different directions. If you are unhappy ( as you seems to be ) that your massive tax bill doesn't get you a level of benefits you think is right over and above ( someone like me as you keep assuming ), then fine. They are the same for you and I as I assume we were both born here. I don't feel the need to measure everything against such as benefits for nationals or anything else against what immigrants might think. I find it bizarre you do.

What do you find so fundamentally unfair about someone deciding they will up and move to another country and then being told that if they do and they then find themselves needing benefits in the near term, they are going to have had to contributed something to get something back ? You were the one arguing that if it isn't equal for immigrants, then cut it. Please justify why it shouldn't at least in the short term be different to have at least contributed something and why I need to see a cut for it to be equal.

You may also want to expand on the idea of why "all the free stuff they get when they arrive" as you put it is a massive pull factor, when all the liberal folks tell me here it's nothing to do with it, they don't use it, don't claim benefits and are just here to work.

[BGARK]

Has that TV programme from last night been mentioned yet!

[HonestIago]

BGARK said:

Has that TV programme from last night been mentioned yet!

Some of the individuals were that tragic I was sure it had to be satire...and I only watched the first half. It proves nothing though, you can find lunatics of all political persuasions.

[don4l]

Zod said:

K, let's talk about cutting the debt over the short term. Leaving aside the tiny foreign aid budget, what would you cut to reduce the debt, given we can't just rely on increased tax receipts from the return of growth? Really big cuts are need to make any dent in the debt, so I look forward to your answer.

I won't leave aside the foreign aid budget, because the first thing that I would do would be to restore it to the 2009/2010 level. This would reduce the deficit by £8Bn, or 5%.

Next up would be anything to do with climate change. The Hadley Centre would be closed down. All staff that are working on climate change in DECC and the DoE would lose their jobs.

Thoose two steps would reduce the deficit by about 7% and the public wouldn't notice that anything had changed.

[Zod]

don4l said:

Zod said:

K, let's talk about cutting the debt over the short term. Leaving aside the tiny foreign aid budget, what would you cut to reduce the debt, given we can't just rely on increased tax receipts from the return of growth? Really big cuts are need to make any dent in the debt, so I look forward to your answer.

I won't leave aside the foreign aid budget, because the first thing that I would do would be to restore it to the 2009/2010 level. This would reduce the deficit by £8Bn, or 5%.

Next up would be anything to do with climate change. The Hadley Centre would be closed down. All staff that are working on climate change in DECC and the DoE would lose their jobs.

Thoose two steps would reduce the deficit by about 7% and the public wouldn't notice that anything had changed.

I thought you wanted to talk about the debt, not the deficit.

[Mrr T]

Yazar said:

As per that program the other week where the Romanian dude had a fair bit of dental work and was bringing over his daughter who broker her leg, how about the free NHS? Or the government (tax-payer) funded charities who teach free english and all the other backdoor funding.

And what if they are in pseudo work. Say a job that happens to be 16 hours. Or a low paid job in a car wash. Or every Romanian 'self employed' big issue seller outside every Waitrose in the south east.

Would they be getting a large chunk of free cash from the government then?

If you mean the program "The Romanians are coming". It was a dreadful program and I am still having to apologise to the Romanians I know about it. A Romanian I know was reduced to tears by some one accusing her based on the program. For god sake she is a qualified nurse and was wiping st off the person abusing her!!!

The program was about Roma people. Roma make up about 10% of the population and are not regared as Romanians by non gypsies. If someone made a program about living in the UK and only showed the gypsy camps around Harlow would you regard that as fair.

The guy had his teeth done but he had no right to NHS care so he must have paid privately. If he got a job and established residency only then would he qualify for NHS care for him and his family. However, he did not get a job and went home.

As for working only 16 hours a week without children you would not get WFTC you might get some Housing Benefit. But even with HB working this little would not enable you to live and eat. i know some one, single, he initially was earning about £12k and got no WFTC or Housing Benefit.

[steveT350C]

Five things Sebastian Payne, a Speccie Journalist, learnt after going behind the scenes with Ukip

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/f...

[Esseesse]

steveT350C said:

Five things Sebastian Payne, a Speccie Journalist, learnt after going behind the scenes with Ukip

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/f...

Yes I saw this earlier, pretty good.

Lots of solid 2nd places please, and then 2020 (or earlier if whatever whacky coalition we get can't hold it together) will be interesting...

[Mrr T]

steveT350C said:

Five things Sebastian Payne, a Speccie Journalist, learnt after going behind the scenes with Ukip

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/f...

"Although Labour isn’t promising an EU referendum, Ukip see a Miliband-led government as helping their cause in the long term. Miliband and Balls will have no option but to continue with austerity, freezing public sector pay and slashing public spending. Labour risks becoming unpopular in areas heavily reliant on public spending, especially in the north where Conservatives are pariahs and the Liberal Democrats face a regional meltdown."

This paragraph made me laugh.

First we all accept a Miliband government will be truly a disaster for the UK. So UKIP really do not care about the UK.

If Labour lose popularity in the north UKIP can take votes. So UKIP is now going to become a left wing party? How will that go down with the ex tory voters.

My own view is 2015, 2 seats, a few second places, and gone in 2020.

[Esseesse]

Mrr T said:

My own view is 2015, 2 seats, a few second places, and gone in 2020.

What if the Euro question rears it's head around 2020?