Reply to: Shocking immigration hysteria

[vetran]

Ha, Ha, Ha - you couldn't make it up!

Romanian migrant treated by Keith Vaz 'is drug user who beat up girlfriend' | Mail Online

Romanian migrant treated to Costa Coffee by Keith Vaz is accused of being a drug user who beat up his girlfriend and threatened to drown her
Victor Spirescu 'met up with his ex-girlfriend in a park and attacked her'
Reports say the Romanian was fined by a court and ordered to pay compensation
He was greeted at Luton Airport by MPs when he arrived in the country on New Year's Day after labour marker restrictions were eased
Migrant now works in a car park next to an Aldi store in Bedfordshire

[SpontaneousOrder]

Indeed, many send money out of the country and hence take from the economy.

What happens to those Great British Pounds then?

[vetran]

Well it's January the third and I must admit I have not yet seen a Bulgarian. But in all fairness, I have only been in Bulgaria for three days.

[DodgyAgent]

I'm a British citizen yet I haven't paid any NI contributions nor tax in 25 years in the UK and previously I only paid around 5 years worth, does this apply to me?

It should do

[GB9]

They add up the amount of income tax paid by the new entrants, throw in the amount the foreign super rich bring in and then count that as a gain.

They however ignore any tax credits, benefits and social costs from the locals being displaced or the different status the immigrants have (e.g. WFTC eligibility or social housing eligibility).

If you compare me to a chap in Africa I'm rich beyond his wildest dreams, if you compare me to Richard Branson I'm not that well off. Pick your figures to support your argument.

I agree with you reicking figures to suit.

And indeed the super rich probably do bring a lot of money into the economy. However, the average immigrant does not add anything. They work within the economy that exists already. Indeed, many send money out of the country and hence take from the economy.

As for competing against migrants based upon rate, from experience, and this is mainly with Bobs, those that intend to stay in the country indefinitely want the same money as I do. The ones who are happy with lower rates have made no secret that their intention is to take as much money back home after 3-5 years, where they will effectively be rich.

[mudskipper]

On a more serious note, balance of risk and cost is an impossible thing to do. Many say that the reluctance of some parents to let their kids take risks, like climb trees, is actually contributing to physical and mental problems. Exercise is good for you but sometimes it can actually cause strokes or heart attacks. What is the exact line in any individual? "Extreme sports" should be risky but, given all the precautions, one is probably safer doing one of those than climbing a rickety ladder to clean the gutters.

Nearly everyone I know who does regular exercise has had related injuries. Mine have been minor - 1 x broken elbow and a bit of physio on my hip, but most people I know who do regular sport have had at least one exercise related operation.

[Flashman]

Blimey its amusing this. People saying its fine, its fine, won't affect me because I'm so clever. Won't affect my children or family because we are alright. FFS its a race to the bottom, get in it or help stop it.

The obvious point that the current situation is the result of years of manipulation of immigration by a series of governments seems to escape many.

1. The NHS needs immigrants because the government decided they were cheaper and more biddable than training UK nationals.The other previously nationalised organisations suffered the same situation.
We actually had to officially apologise to the Philippine government for stealing all their freshly trained nurses. Private enterprise want to get in on the action.

2. As pointed out if we import trained people what happens to our young?

3. Many of the imported labour will become eligible for subsidies such as WFTC. So we effectively pay big companies to reduce wages.

4. If you are on benefits and receiving £X a month you are unlikely to take the risk of taking a Zero hour contract to earn £X-Y a month possibly. You aren't lazy and you aren't stupid either. Until benefits become uncomfortable and jobs at the bottom end more stable you won't remove people from the dole queue.

5. America is a land of immigrants but if you have visited Ellis Island you realised that only the fittest or richest got in, if you survived months of travelling and passed the quarantine & medical you got in. Then you had to fight to survive. Not quite the same as getting false papers and claiming asylum at Heathrow.

6. Communicable diseases are on the increase and immigrants infected have been seriously suggested as the cause.

7. Whilst there are clear statistics proving serious crime is more prevalent in some immigrant groups even if it weren't the cost of policing them is higher for obvious reasons.

8. If You were a wanted criminal in your home country why wouldn't you move to a new country to escape detection and continue your crimes? Remember legal immigrants are self selecting.


Of course as teh Ambassador said Romania is empty because they are really all heading for Spain or Italy, and they don't need to earn 4 times their average salary because Romania is doing rather well and the costs of houses are probably rising, no one would want ready cash to buy a few properties at home and become rich ?

One assumes the 101,000 currently in the UK are unlikely to want their families to join them? So that is probably ~200,000 people that won't come.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migrat...ember-2012.xls

Table 1.3

Maybe some of the others entitled to Romanian / Bulgarian passports won't arrive instead?

Non-EU citizens will be able to work in Britain after Bulgarian restrictions lifted - Telegraph

But carry on believing it will all be fine.

Intelligent post.

Worth the effort?

[xoggoth]

On a more serious note, balance of risk and cost is an impossible thing to do. Many say that the reluctance of some parents to let their kids take risks, like climb trees, is actually contributing to physical and mental problems. Exercise is good for you but sometimes it can actually cause strokes or heart attacks. What is the exact line in any individual? "Extreme sports" should be risky but, given all the precautions, one is probably safer doing one of those than climbing a rickety ladder to clean the gutters.

[xoggoth]

So would personal contribution to genuine disabilities be accounted for?

You are quite right to point out this flaw in my logic. What we also need is to be micro-chipped at birth. These devices would monitor such things as how much exercise we had had, what we had eaten etc and send such data to government tracking stations located throughout the UK.

A few details. Exercise could be monitored with a small pedometer inserted into the buttocks. All food stuffs would need to contain traces of fluorescent dyes in proportion to the potentially unhealthy materials in them, eg Healthine A for saturated fats, Healthine B for sugar and so on. These could be gauged by a little UV device inserted next to the intestine. A miniature smoke detector inserted up the nose would catch smokers. All these devices would be linked to your chip.

PS And cameras on the forehead and other places to show you have not been doing anything risky. If you got HIV for example the NHS would not pay the bill if the records from your bum camera showed you had indulged in any unprotected bum fun.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You do know that not all type 2 diabetics are fat lazy slobs?

Though you can have that argument with the likes of Mr and Mrs Redgrave.

Also smokers tend to pay more in taxes than they use. Plus you get the genetic freaks like June Brown who live well into old age.

So your system falls down there.

It's not my system. I'm 100% for private healthcare.

But - being a fatty vastly increases the odds of getting diabetes (as the Chinese are finding out), and insurers etc charge a higher premium for increased risk. Should healthcare work the same?

Smoking is a separate issue, complicated by the taxation. If were talking about drastic restructuring of healthcare, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that tax could be removed from cigs too - especially if that lost revenue is saved elsewhere.

I ride my motorbike on track at 170 mph in places - is it fair for me to get publicly funded treatment if I crash after deliberately taking such a risk? Is that any more/less fair than someone who deliberately chooses to be less productive getting treatment when they need it?
And is it fair on the risk averse guy who works his arse off and pays a shed-load of tax?

I'm a prices guy - I love them. Obviously all the examples i'm pointing out are leading to the conclusion that people could determine what they feel is fair by the price they're willing to pay.

BUT - i'm just asking that *if* someone's retirement care is determined by the balance of credit/debit to 'society', then should their deliberate choice to take risks, or avoid them, affect their credits/debits?

[vetran]

Blimey its amusing this. People saying its fine, its fine, won't affect me because I'm so clever. Won't affect my children or family because we are alright. FFS its a race to the bottom, get in it or help stop it.

The obvious point that the current situation is the result of years of manipulation of immigration by a series of governments seems to escape many.

1. The NHS needs immigrants because the government decided they were cheaper and more biddable than training UK nationals.The other previously nationalised organisations suffered the same situation.
We actually had to officially apologise to the Philippine government for stealing all their freshly trained nurses. Private enterprise want to get in on the action.

2. As pointed out if we import trained people what happens to our young?

3. Many of the imported labour will become eligible for subsidies such as WFTC. So we effectively pay big companies to reduce wages.

4. If you are on benefits and receiving £X a month you are unlikely to take the risk of taking a Zero hour contract to earn £X-Y a month possibly. You aren't lazy and you aren't stupid either. Until benefits become uncomfortable and jobs at the bottom end more stable you won't remove people from the dole queue.

5. America is a land of immigrants but if you have visited Ellis Island you realised that only the fittest or richest got in, if you survived months of travelling and passed the quarantine & medical you got in. Then you had to fight to survive. Not quite the same as getting false papers and claiming asylum at Heathrow.

6. Communicable diseases are on the increase and immigrants infected have been seriously suggested as the cause.

7. Whilst there are clear statistics proving serious crime is more prevalent in some immigrant groups even if it weren't the cost of policing them is higher for obvious reasons.

8. If You were a wanted criminal in your home country why wouldn't you move to a new country to escape detection and continue your crimes? Remember legal immigrants are self selecting.


Of course as teh Ambassador said Romania is empty because they are really all heading for Spain or Italy, and they don't need to earn 4 times their average salary because Romania is doing rather well and the costs of houses are probably rising, no one would want ready cash to buy a few properties at home and become rich ?

One assumes the 101,000 currently in the UK are unlikely to want their families to join them? So that is probably ~200,000 people that won't come.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migrat...ember-2012.xls

Table 1.3

Maybe some of the others entitled to Romanian / Bulgarian passports won't arrive instead?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ns-lifted.html

But carry on believing it will all be fine.

[doodab]

Maybe individuals should file personal accounts every year. The profit and loss sheet would includes tax payments and certain other credits for genuine disability, services to voluntary bodies etc. Expenses would include welfare, time in prison, use of NHS etc. On retirement what you get is based entirely on your balance sheet.

It would make little sense for an individual to do anything other than run a deficit and forget their state pension. Most people would have little choice, as with health and education in the early years they'd be in debt from when they were born until the age of 40 anyway, never mind if they actually got seriously ill in that time.

[SueEllen]

That sound a like an idea that's at least worth talking about. So would personal contribution to genuine disabilities be accounted for? I.e. lets say you're a fat ****er, and you get diabetes - does that count as a credit?

You do know that not all type 2 diabetics are fat lazy slobs?

Though you can have that argument with the likes of Mr and Mrs Redgrave.

Also smokers tend to pay more in taxes than they use. Plus you get the genetic freaks like June Brown who live well into old age.

So your system falls down there.

[Zero Liability]

To the extent that healthcare problems are due to lifestyle choices, I can't see why you should get the benefit of subsidised public healthcare for it. Insurers don't cover/charge more for situations where the risk is higher, particularly where you have control over the risk, so I don't see why the NHS should be run any differently.

Maybe individuals should file personal accounts every year. The profit and loss sheet would includes tax payments and certain other credits for genuine disability, services to voluntary bodies etc. Expenses would include welfare, time in prison, use of NHS etc. On retirement what you get is based entirely on your balance sheet.

Yup, would definitely be a marked improvement over the current system, particularly if you can avoid particular taxes by disclaiming any of the supposed benefits they offer.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Maybe individuals should file personal accounts every year. The profit and loss sheet would includes tax payments and certain other credits for genuine disability, services to voluntary bodies etc. Expenses would include welfare, time in prison, use of NHS etc. On retirement what you get is based entirely on your balance sheet.

That sound a like an idea that's at least worth talking about. So would personal contribution to genuine disabilities be accounted for? I.e. lets say you're a fat ****er, and you get diabetes - does that count as a credit?