|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 19:21:27 GMT
We are not talking about rocket scientists we are talking about a job in the care profession that many people do not wish to do at 'the going rate', so employers either have to increase the going rate or, if they are allowed to, bring in an immigrant. Both have costs to the taxpayer as I have outlined. It is for the employer to decide the suitability of any candidate and lets be honest here bringing in an immigrant rarely depends fully on quality but usually relies on cost to the employer. I have not changed my mind about anything I have explained what actually happens several times with some consistency. And what if residents at care homes can't afford the increased service costs? How many will you personally house and care for? See above. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 20:03:59 GMT
Hang on, we're back to the tax payer paying for increased costs? Break it down for me: the care home Mr Smith's elderly mother lives in raises their costs to pay for your pay rises. Mr Smith and his mother cannot afford the increased costs. Vague reassurances about long term gains aren't going to help them in the here and now. What do they do? "Useless jobs will disappear because those in them have gone to do useful jobs" Have they? All of them? How will you ensure this? We are not back to anything we are on, and always have been, the taxpayer is the one who meets all the costs no matter how they are accrued. All I have done is explain the two ways in which those costs are met by the tax payer. Now you are seeking detail which will depend on many things and each individual case will rest on its own merits. On average the costs for Mr Smith(s) will be lower as a taxpayer. Let us assume that he does not have increased costs as the employer is allowed to choose to employ from abroad, so far so good but next tax year his tax goes up because the Brit possibly employed is still claiming benefits, the immigrant and his family are paying tax and NI but are claiming all sorts of in work benefits and as they came from a country with a poor health care system their dental and health care initial requirements are expensive and detailed, they also have two children to educate and receive family allowance for and his wife is economically inactive. These costs are greater than that which he saved from not paying the increased care costs and the tax taken by way of income tax, VAT and fuel is more than he saved earlier. So the care cannot continue, it may be postponed a few months but it will still happen. I do not ensure useless jobs go, the market decides which jobs are productive and which are useless. You haven't explained what Mr Smith and his mother do, they'll be lots of people like them. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 20:09:36 GMT
We are not back to anything we are on, and always have been, the taxpayer is the one who meets all the costs no matter how they are accrued. All I have done is explain the two ways in which those costs are met by the tax payer. Now you are seeking detail which will depend on many things and each individual case will rest on its own merits. On average the costs for Mr Smith(s) will be lower as a taxpayer. Let us assume that he does not have increased costs as the employer is allowed to choose to employ from abroad, so far so good but next tax year his tax goes up because the Brit possibly employed is still claiming benefits, the immigrant and his family are paying tax and NI but are claiming all sorts of in work benefits and as they came from a country with a poor health care system their dental and health care initial requirements are expensive and detailed, they also have two children to educate and receive family allowance for and his wife is economically inactive. These costs are greater than that which he saved from not paying the increased care costs and the tax taken by way of income tax, VAT and fuel is more than he saved earlier. So the care cannot continue, it may be postponed a few months but it will still happen. I do not ensure useless jobs go, the market decides which jobs are productive and which are useless. You haven't explained what Mr Smith and his mother do, they'll be lots of people like them. You haven't explained it, just made vague arguments about how they'd be screwed over at some point in the future by the tax burden anyway. A solution that results in them being screwed over even sooner isn't a solution. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 20:54:21 GMT
You haven't explained what Mr Smith and his mother do, they'll be lots of people like them. You haven't explained it, just made vague arguments about how they'd be screwed over at some point in the future by the tax burden anyway. A solution that results in them being screwed over even sooner isn't a solution. As I said each case will be assessed on its own merits, if the specific case is referred to then in the detail in may be necessary to make some form of transitional allowances, who knows, all things are possible but the reality is that carrying on with a ponzi scheme of ever increasing immigration not only pushes the costs down the road that will be paid but increases those costs later as further immigration is required as the initial immigrant realises he does not need to do the job at those rates either. Let us say Mr Smith can afford the costs in the short term and is cock-a-hoop when his taxes do not go up the following year and he finds out he is quids in. Becasue he now has more money in his pocket than he would have done if the other scenario had been followed. I can recall when we joined the EEC in 73 and the Labour party were supportive of the government that said some prices will go up in the short term but in the long term we will be better off. There were no transitional allowances for those who suffered as food prices zoomed away then but the long term goals were seen as worth the pain. There were similar situations as regards joining the EU. What did most of teh politicians say after the EU referendum people did not vote to be poorer but if you vote for increased immigration to fill vacancies instead of allowing the labour market of supply and demand to fill those vacancies then being poorer is exactly what will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 21:11:57 GMT
You haven't explained it, just made vague arguments about how they'd be screwed over at some point in the future by the tax burden anyway. A solution that results in them being screwed over even sooner isn't a solution. As I said each case will be assessed on its own merits, if the specific case is referred to then in the detail in may be necessary to make some form of transitional allowances, who knows, all things are possible but the reality is that carrying on with a ponzi scheme of ever increasing immigration not only pushes the costs down the road that will be paid but increases those costs later as further immigration is required as the initial immigrant realises he does not need to do the job at those rates either. Let us say Mr Smith can afford the costs in the short term and is cock-a-hoop when his taxes do not go up the following year and he finds out he is quids in. Becasue he now has more money in his pocket than he would have done if the other scenario had been followed. I can recall when we joined the EEC in 73 and the Labour party were supportive of the government that said some prices will go up in the short term but in the long term we will be better off. There were no transitional allowances for those who suffered as food prices zoomed away then but the long term goals were seen as worth the pain. There were similar situations as regards joining the EU. What did most of teh politicians say after the EU referendum people did not vote to be poorer but if you vote for increased immigration to fill vacancies instead of allowing the labour market of supply and demand to fill those vacancies then being poorer is exactly what will happen. Again, you talk about long term problems but your only "solution" is to make things worse even sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 21:50:35 GMT
As I said each case will be assessed on its own merits, if the specific case is referred to then in the detail in may be necessary to make some form of transitional allowances, who knows, all things are possible but the reality is that carrying on with a ponzi scheme of ever increasing immigration not only pushes the costs down the road that will be paid but increases those costs later as further immigration is required as the initial immigrant realises he does not need to do the job at those rates either. Let us say Mr Smith can afford the costs in the short term and is cock-a-hoop when his taxes do not go up the following year and he finds out he is quids in. Becasue he now has more money in his pocket than he would have done if the other scenario had been followed. I can recall when we joined the EEC in 73 and the Labour party were supportive of the government that said some prices will go up in the short term but in the long term we will be better off. There were no transitional allowances for those who suffered as food prices zoomed away then but the long term goals were seen as worth the pain. There were similar situations as regards joining the EU. What did most of teh politicians say after the EU referendum people did not vote to be poorer but if you vote for increased immigration to fill vacancies instead of allowing the labour market of supply and demand to fill those vacancies then being poorer is exactly what will happen. Again, you talk about long term problems but your only "solution" is to make things worse even sooner. No short term pain, which can be alleviated, to secure long term benefits. That is why I referenced the EEC as when food prices rose, mostly as a direct consequence of joining, the argument was short term pain for lang term benefit. It is a sound principle practised by all governments of every hue. Brown dished out oodles of cash to the banks for our short term pain but he hoped our long term benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 22:02:03 GMT
Again, you talk about long term problems but your only "solution" is to make things worse even sooner. No short term pain, which can be alleviated, to secure long term benefits. That is why I referenced the EEC as when food prices rose, mostly as a direct consequence of joining, the argument was short term pain for lang term benefit. It is a sound principle practised by all governments of every hue. Brown dished out oodles of cash to the banks for our short term pain but he hoped our long term benefit. But your proposed solution will not only cause short term problems but add to the welfare burden in the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 22:10:08 GMT
No short term pain, which can be alleviated, to secure long term benefits. That is why I referenced the EEC as when food prices rose, mostly as a direct consequence of joining, the argument was short term pain for lang term benefit. It is a sound principle practised by all governments of every hue. Brown dished out oodles of cash to the banks for our short term pain but he hoped our long term benefit. But your proposed solution will not only cause short term problems but add to the welfare burden in the long term. I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion it may add to the welfare burden in the short term as I said could be alleviated but is likely to reduce the welfare burden in teh long term as people come off benefits and dependants of low paid migrants are not here claiming all the in work benefits, family allowance and health care. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 22:17:21 GMT
But your proposed solution will not only cause short term problems but add to the welfare burden in the long term. I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion it may add to the welfare burden in the short term as I said could be alleviated but is likely to reduce the welfare burden in teh long term as people come off benefits and dependants of low paid migrants are not here claiming all the in work benefits, family allowance and health care. But the British tax payer will be landed with the bill for elderly people turfed out of care homes they can't afford, people who had to give up work to care for elderly relatives when they couldn't afford care for them, this will be a continuous problem too. Not to mention the businesses folding and jobs lost from care homes closed down and knock on effect to subcontractors and suppliers. Economic migrants tend to be younger working age people less likely to need healthcare and more likely to be paying into the tax pot. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 24, 2023 22:26:09 GMT
Yep - there are currently 5.5 million working-age people receiving out-of-work benefits, as well as 1.7 million economically inactive people – those who are out of work and either not looking for or available to start work – who say they want a job. Anyone who claims that we need immigration is gaslighting you. So the state forces people into specific professions? Currently the state forces British people onto the dole - I would rather they were given the opportunity to work. rather old fashioned of me I know. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 22:29:06 GMT
So the state forces people into specific professions? Currently the state forces British people onto the dole - I would rather they were given the opportunity to work. rather old fashioned of me I know. Opportunity is an entirely different concept and I'm all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 24, 2023 22:32:20 GMT
Currently the state forces British people onto the dole - I would rather they were given the opportunity to work. rather old fashioned of me I know. Opportunity is an entirely different concept and I'm all for it. if you support mass immigration you are not giving them the opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 22:33:54 GMT
Opportunity is an entirely different concept and I'm all for it. if you support mass immigration you are not giving them the opportunity. I support controlled immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 24, 2023 23:18:50 GMT
It’s actually a reasonable question you ask. Let’s accept for now that there is a material gap between the need for people to care for elderly people in care homes and the number of people currently in the UK who want to do that job. Q1 Do we accept that in that scenario we have to bring in people from abroad to fill those roles. If not what is the alternative? Q2 if we accept we have to import social care labor from overseas, what makes us think that there are sufficient people willing to come to this country to do this work leaving their partners and any children behind? If the reality on the ground is that the only way to get sufficient numbers to come is to allow them to bring close family, are we then forced to do so? What is the alternative? 1 Increase salaries/wages until the positions are filled 2 If they will not come on their own they do not come. Bringing in families will add significant costs to the country. It would be easier, and cheaper, to adopt 1. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 25, 2023 7:40:53 GMT
if you support mass immigration you are not giving them the opportunity. I support controlled immigration. So do I - what we need is Net Zero Immigration. |
|
