UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
And just why would i want to do that?
How does that tell me anything?
I'll answer that for you. It doesn't, it's not evidence of anything.
here we go again!How does that tell me anything?
I'll answer that for you. It doesn't, it's not evidence of anything.
Look, if you don't believe me, go and try it.
it becomes very obvious when a flight comes in from Lagos for example.
it would be funny if it was not so serious...
Scuffers said:
there are NO HARD NUMBERS for health tourism because it's not something that's logged/audited/etc.
Then it's not really worth speculating is it?Scuffers said:
I suspect the real costs to the NHS of health tourism and migration are staggeringly high, ie, 20-25% of the total NHS budget if you actually do the sums properly.
Oh so it is worth speculating then? But how have you come to this conclusion?Scuffers said:
Look, if you don't believe me, go and try it.
it becomes very obvious when a flight comes in from Lagos for example.
So you've been stood in Heathrow and a bunch of black people arrive (presumably looking poorly?) and that's your evidence for 20-25% of the NHS budget going on health tourism and migrationit becomes very obvious when a flight comes in from Lagos for example.
Scuffers said:
it would be funny if it was not so serious...
Well, quite.Scuffers said:
here we go again!
Look, if you don't believe me, go and try it.
it becomes very obvious when a flight comes in from Lagos for example.
it would be funny if it was not so serious...
I tried it but could only get round to departures. There are thousands of people leaving the country Look, if you don't believe me, go and try it.
it becomes very obvious when a flight comes in from Lagos for example.
it would be funny if it was not so serious...
Devil2575 said:
MGJohn said:
Good chance you'd win that bet.
Consider this:
By that couple of generations, at the present massive rate of immigration and rising, plus higher breeding ratios, indigenous Brits will become an endangered species in their own UK habitat and outnumbered to extinction. There are signs of that in some areas of the UK already and its spreading.
Integration... yeah ... right.
Consider this:~
"I need NHS" .... Unsustainable.
You really have been taken in by the bullsConsider this:
By that couple of generations, at the present massive rate of immigration and rising, plus higher breeding ratios, indigenous Brits will become an endangered species in their own UK habitat and outnumbered to extinction. There are signs of that in some areas of the UK already and its spreading.
Integration... yeah ... right.
Consider this:~
"I need NHS" .... Unsustainable.
t haven't you.Suggest anal self insertion of your own bovine excrement statement or better still. consume and regurgitate ad nausi-wossname as you so frequently do.
Now go and write out a millyon times. I must learn the meaning of the word...
UNSUSTAINABLE.
TKF said:
Mrr T said:
Since its higher than the national average wage it means over 50% of the UK population does not support itself. Clearly that is wrong.
It's not wrong.There are several different studies online showing the numbers but most agree that for income tax the top 50% contribute around 90% of the total income tax.
Typical split is normally:
Top 1% = 25%
90-99% = 30%
50-90% = 35%
10-50% = 10%
Bottom 10% = 0.000000001%
Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
Mrr T said:
Except the sources you refer to only concerns only Income Tax. Income Tax is only about 1/3 of the UK tax revenue (2013/14 £158bn). VAT, NIC, Fuel Duty, Alcohol Duty, Insurance Premium Tax are all raised on a much more even manner and raise about £260bn.
Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
so, basically, after all that, you're pretty much agreeing with his initial point, ie. they are not contributing.Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
Mrr T said:
TKF said:
Mrr T said:
Since its higher than the national average wage it means over 50% of the UK population does not support itself. Clearly that is wrong.
It's not wrong.There are several different studies online showing the numbers but most agree that for income tax the top 50% contribute around 90% of the total income tax.
Typical split is normally:
Top 1% = 25%
90-99% = 30%
50-90% = 35%
10-50% = 10%
Bottom 10% = 0.000000001%
Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 26th May 16:12
Scuffers said:
Mrr T said:
Except the sources you refer to only concerns only Income Tax. Income Tax is only about 1/3 of the UK tax revenue (2013/14 £158bn). VAT, NIC, Fuel Duty, Alcohol Duty, Insurance Premium Tax are all raised on a much more even manner and raise about £260bn.
Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
so, basically, after all that, you're pretty much agreeing with his initial point, ie. they are not contributing.Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
So NO I am saying most immigrants from the EU are contributing.
Mrr T said:
Except the sources you refer to only concerns only Income Tax. Income Tax is only about 1/3 of the UK tax revenue (2013/14 £158bn). VAT, NIC, Fuel Duty, Alcohol Duty, Insurance Premium Tax are all raised on a much more even manner and raise about £260bn.
Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
Lots of words, no proper analysis, no figures. Total waste of every one's time.Further any cut off is highly dependant on personal circumstances. Children and illness will make a big difference. The cut off for a childless couple who are in good health will be much lower. Where as en elderly couple without children but in poor health the cut off will be much higher.
Finally the analysis ignore any indirect benefits. A worker who makes a product which his employer sells at a profit which the employer then takes as income means the income is a contribution of the worker not the boss.
So yes its wrong.
Of course, there are no full figures.
Mrr T said:
NicD said:
Just another 'benefit' of multicultural Britain:
'Police raids halt scheme where migrants flew to Britain for just ONE DAY to claim benefits'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/579780/Police-rai...
Unfortunately it is the benefit that taxpayers pay and scammers steal.
Its also a story from the Daily Express!!!'Police raids halt scheme where migrants flew to Britain for just ONE DAY to claim benefits'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/579780/Police-rai...
Unfortunately it is the benefit that taxpayers pay and scammers steal.
Its difficult to see how the fraud would work. Housing Benefit is only available if you live in the area, so they would need an address I assume local authorities check addresses exist and would notice lots of claims on the same address. The says they are Bangladeshi's living in Italy. Unless they have Italian residence they would need a visa to enter the UK, How did they get visas? Even if they had Italian citizenship so can travel and work in the UK they would need evidence of a job in the UK as well since Housing Benefit is not available to EU jobseekers.
Sounds like a typical rubbish news story.
here is the story:
'A charity trustee has been charged with a fraud offence after a huge benefits racket probe involving hundreds of Bangladeshi migrants with European Union passports.
Asma Khanam, 46, of Newbury Park, east London, who is involved with relief organisation Families for Survival UK, was among 13 people arrested as part of the investigation.
The racket is said to involve fraudsters making one-day trips from Italy to attend interviews at Jobcentres for National Insurance numbers.
Families for Survival’s offices in Ilford, east London, were searched by investigators and documents and computers were seized.
The arrests follow an investigation by the Department for Work and Pensions and Redbridge Council into a scam which is thought to have cost taxpayers millions of pounds. It could be one of the largest organised benefits frauds ever uncovered in Britain.
Bangladesh-born migrants alleged to be involved in the racket have arrived in the UK over the past three years after getting EU citizenship in Italy. They are accused of making false housing benefit claims to local councils after obtaining national insurance numbers and moving into new homes. Bogus wage slips were allegedly produced to help with their applications.
Last year Essex Police reported a significant number of Bangladesh-born migrants with Italian passports arriving at London Stansted Airport from Italy. They were armed with appointment letters to attend interviews at job centres in London to obtain National Insurance numbers and had return flights tickets for the same day.
The DWP later identified up to 400 applications for National Insurance numbers had been received from the same address in Bow, east London. The address was one of a number visited during last Tuesday's police operation.
Families for Survival UK is alleged to be one of at least five organisations which provided fraudsters with fake employment details. Two directors of other companies, including a recruitment firm, were also arrested. A number of the companies are alleged not to be trading. Under Government rules, EU nationals are only allowed to claim housing benefit in Britain if they can prove they work here.'
http://benefitfraud.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/hundred...
Scuffers said:
Mrr T said:
Only Scuffers could read a post which disagrees with him and suggest it agrees with him.
So NO I am saying most immigrants from the EU are contributing.
OK, prove it.So NO I am saying most immigrants from the EU are contributing.
(and don't even think about linking to that god awful LSE report!)
t.France and Germany behind plans for common corporation tax
Plans to discuss a minimum tax rate which would particularly hit Ireland and Luxembourg, possibly also Britain.
Would this involve another debate along the lines of on the one hand the EU controls our VAT rate vs no it doesn't we can set our own rate vs but the EU sets out various parameters within which we have to operate vs but we can still set our rate within that so we aren't influened by Brussels. :sigh:
Plans to discuss a minimum tax rate which would particularly hit Ireland and Luxembourg, possibly also Britain.
Would this involve another debate along the lines of on the one hand the EU controls our VAT rate vs no it doesn't we can set our own rate vs but the EU sets out various parameters within which we have to operate vs but we can still set our rate within that so we aren't influened by Brussels. :sigh:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff