FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Work for your benefits
Work for your benefits
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ebbie69 OP Couple
over a year ago
milton keynes |
So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?"
Yes but court case to follow. .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Denmark to make women work for benefits" may have got a slightly different response.
Tbh I'm towards leaning in favour of there is complementary training, sufficient jobs, and the other tasks aren't being used as a way of skimping on costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ebbie69 OP Couple
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I'm sure many migrants would love to work as many are probably well qualified in many fields"
It seems, according to the article to be aimed at those who have not worked and claimed benefits for years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ebbie69 OP Couple
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Yes but court case to follow. ...."
I was wondering if they will fall foul of discrimination rules as it is only migrants that face this. I have not seen any news on why they don't apply the same rules to non migrants. Seems their tough stance has reduced migration a lot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Looks like this may be posturing. From what I can see there isn't a majority party in Denmark, and so this is just a proposed policy from the (far ish) right PM, which will likely get compromised down. But like Trump's wall etc it is a great signal to their supporters about how tough they are.
Interesting idea tho ... Difficult to pull off in practice without causing issues n |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?"
Well, plenty of UK citizens work and still need benefits. I understand that that isn't the same thing as working FOR your benefits - but I don't, necessarily, think it's a bad idea.
Working is better for you than sitting doing nothing, in many ways.
What I would say is that no government should allow anyone to be exploited by an employer, in order that they should qualify for a benefit payment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Well, plenty of UK citizens work and still need benefits. I understand that that isn't the same thing as working FOR your benefits - but I don't, necessarily, think it's a bad idea.
Working is better for you than sitting doing nothing, in many ways.
What I would say is that no government should allow anyone to be exploited by an employer, in order that they should qualify for a benefit payment. "
What about people exploiting the benefits system? Therein lies a large slice of the problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Well, plenty of UK citizens work and still need benefits. I understand that that isn't the same thing as working FOR your benefits - but I don't, necessarily, think it's a bad idea.
Working is better for you than sitting doing nothing, in many ways.
What I would say is that no government should allow anyone to be exploited by an employer, in order that they should qualify for a benefit payment.
What about people exploiting the benefits system? Therein lies a large slice of the problem"
This is a lie, fed to people to get them pissy at someone other than those responsible for this shit show  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Well, plenty of UK citizens work and still need benefits. I understand that that isn't the same thing as working FOR your benefits - but I don't, necessarily, think it's a bad idea.
Working is better for you than sitting doing nothing, in many ways.
What I would say is that no government should allow anyone to be exploited by an employer, in order that they should qualify for a benefit payment.
What about people exploiting the benefits system? Therein lies a large slice of the problem"
Source of your evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Yes but court case to follow. ....
I was wondering if they will fall foul of discrimination rules as it is only migrants that face this. I have not seen any news on why they don't apply the same rules to non migrants. Seems their tough stance has reduced migration a lot"
Rule change, nothing in nothing out? It's taking the piss to arrive in a country uninvited and then claim and never contribute in my opinion. Race and colour etc have nothing to do with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Well, plenty of UK citizens work and still need benefits. I understand that that isn't the same thing as working FOR your benefits - but I don't, necessarily, think it's a bad idea.
Working is better for you than sitting doing nothing, in many ways.
What I would say is that no government should allow anyone to be exploited by an employer, in order that they should qualify for a benefit payment.
What about people exploiting the benefits system? Therein lies a large slice of the problem
This is a lie, fed to people to get them pissy at someone other than those responsible for this shit show "
Especially at a time when £20 per week is being taken back, its not much to some but a fortune to others |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?
Well, plenty of UK citizens work and still need benefits. I understand that that isn't the same thing as working FOR your benefits - but I don't, necessarily, think it's a bad idea.
Working is better for you than sitting doing nothing, in many ways.
What I would say is that no government should allow anyone to be exploited by an employer, in order that they should qualify for a benefit payment.
What about people exploiting the benefits system? Therein lies a large slice of the problem
This is a lie, fed to people to get them pissy at someone other than those responsible for this shit show
Especially at a time when £20 per week is being taken back, its not much to some but a fortune to others "
its not being taken back they got a bit of a bonus when furlough came in now the bonus is being stopped,same as furlough,its not like everyone was getting it either only those on u.c,couple of freinds are still on j.s.a as not been moved to u.c yet,they didnt get anything extra |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" asylum seekers to be made to work for £1.07 an hour? that's nonsensical. can't see that standing up in an anti sl@very trail against the home office."
£1.07 PLUS free school, nhs, accommodation...... ?? I'd take it if I arrived from some hell hole that did nothing for me.... perhaps after x amount of time full rights? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" asylum seekers to be made to work for £1.07 an hour? that's nonsensical. can't see that standing up in an anti sl@very trail against the home office.
£1.07 PLUS free school, nhs, accommodation...... ?? I'd take it if I arrived from some hell hole that did nothing for me.... perhaps after x amount of time full rights?"
you're talking obvious crap again by trying to sneak child migrants into the equation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" asylum seekers to be made to work for £1.07 an hour? that's nonsensical. can't see that standing up in an anti sl@very trail against the home office.
£1.07 PLUS free school, nhs, accommodation...... ?? I'd take it if I arrived from some hell hole that did nothing for me.... perhaps after x amount of time full rights?
you're talking obvious crap again by trying to sneak child migrants into the equation. "
Even for adults, 1.07 per hour plus accommodation and free healthcare is a good deal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wouldn’t stop at migrants. Anyone on unemployment benefits for more than 12 months should have to work for the state or accept significant cuts to their benefits. The longer unemployed the greater the hours one should work and the greater the cuts to benefits if they choose not to or don’t put in sufficient effort. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wouldn’t stop at migrants. Anyone on unemployment benefits for more than 12 months should have to work for the state or accept significant cuts to their benefits. The longer unemployed the greater the hours one should work and the greater the cuts to benefits if they choose not to or don’t put in sufficient effort."
Agree that it should apply for anyone on benefits for long enough unless they have physical disability. But increasing hours and cutting benefits might not be necessary IMO. The benefits they get are basic. If they want to lead a better life, they need to equip themselves to find better jobs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour."
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour.
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit."
actually it isn't, but then you already know that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour.
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit.
actually it isn't, but then you already know that "
No it is. You already know that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I never got an answer for why such a large group of lefties would care about what the government gives are doesn't give for asylum seekers.
Going by the internet comments, there is population large enough that really wants to give a comfortable living for asylum seekers. That's a noble thought. Given the number of people who want this, they can always form their own social funds and donate their own money to achieve that and they will be left with a lot of balance too. But for some reason, none of them are willing to do that. It's always about taking money from someone else's pocket and help others so that they can feel morally superior. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour.
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit.
actually it isn't, but then you already know that
No it is. You already know that."
that would make you a scrounger and a bludger then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour.
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit.
actually it isn't, but then you already know that
No it is. You already know that.
that would make you a scrounger and a bludger then "
But I pay taxes here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice."
There are far more British people on benefits than migrants |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour.
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit."
Hahaha, that is hilarious (I just hope your trying to be funny )  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the law requires ALL children to receive education so that part is crap and can be dismissed. healthcare is not a benefit, it is available to all who reside in the country so that is also crap and is dismissed. the law requires that asylum seekers be housed so that is also total crap and is dismissed.
which leaves the noble far righty types demanding that asylum seekers be forced to work for £1.07 per hour.
Anything you get for which someone else pays for is a benefit.
Hahaha, that is hilarious (I just hope your trying to be funny ) "
Got any valid point to debate with? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?"
Seems perfectly sensible to me but why should it only apply to migrants! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" asylum seekers to be made to work for £1.07 an hour? that's nonsensical. can't see that standing up in an anti sl@very trail against the home office.
£1.07 PLUS free school, nhs, accommodation...... ?? I'd take it if I arrived from some hell hole that did nothing for me.... perhaps after x amount of time full rights?
you're talking obvious crap again by trying to sneak child migrants into the equation. "
?? what are you on about? its you who talks crap, yeah just pay for everyone from around the world.... you can start by doubling your contributions if you like? no, i thought not.
Im saying you have to look at the overall costs, not just the £1.07 figure thats been mentioned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice."
Or go back to where they come from and get benefits or a job there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" asylum seekers to be made to work for £1.07 an hour? that's nonsensical. can't see that standing up in an anti sl@very trail against the home office.
£1.07 PLUS free school, nhs, accommodation...... ?? I'd take it if I arrived from some hell hole that did nothing for me.... perhaps after x amount of time full rights?
you're talking obvious crap again by trying to sneak child migrants into the equation.
?? what are you on about? its you who talks crap, yeah just pay for everyone from around the world.... you can start by doubling your contributions if you like? no, i thought not.
Im saying you have to look at the overall costs, not just the £1.07 figure thats been mentioned."
in answer to your strawman, i wouldn't notice any real imapct on the enjoyment of my personal wealth to be honest.
but back to the topic, the government refuses to allow asylum seekers to work and the amount of laws they would need to change to allow themselves to pay the said asylum seekers sl@ve wages would doubtless lead to them being schooled in the courts yet again, which would be far more costly. maybe you need to deal with those facts as they stand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never got an answer for why such a large group of lefties would care about what the government gives are doesn't give for asylum seekers.
Going by the internet comments, there is population large enough that really wants to give a comfortable living for asylum seekers. That's a noble thought. Given the number of people who want this, they can always form their own social funds and donate their own money to achieve that and they will be left with a lot of balance too. But for some reason, none of them are willing to do that. It's always about taking money from someone else's pocket and help others so that they can feel morally superior."
I'm probably left and probably pay a fair whack more in taxes than many.
My view is that our approach to support needs to look past passports especially on cases where we may have contributed to their homes being dangerous to them.
If we think charity is better than taxes then why don't we also do something like that closer to home. I wonder how many who would be okay seeing less spending on refugees would support the same approach for Brits who use the same support. Especially given many people are net taker from the state. Our desire for wealth redistribution is strong within our borders and weak outside of it. Funny that.
What I would like to see is a system that helps train and integrate refugees so they can, in the long run, contribute. And maybe the same approach can be used on our poorer locals. Rather than an education system that effectively babysits kids if they live in the wrong postcode. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice.
Or go back to where they come from and get benefits or a job there. "
Let me guess, your a Tory voting Brexit supporter , who likes Farage? ( before you ask I voted liberal in the last GE and voted to remain) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice."
Where are these jobs coming from? And if there are such jobs, why don't the companies they are with, take them on and pay them a wage?!? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never got an answer for why such a large group of lefties would care about what the government gives are doesn't give for asylum seekers.
Going by the internet comments, there is population large enough that really wants to give a comfortable living for asylum seekers. That's a noble thought. Given the number of people who want this, they can always form their own social funds and donate their own money to achieve that and they will be left with a lot of balance too. But for some reason, none of them are willing to do that. It's always about taking money from someone else's pocket and help others so that they can feel morally superior.
I'm probably left and probably pay a fair whack more in taxes than many.
My view is that our approach to support needs to look past passports especially on cases where we may have contributed to their homes being dangerous to them.
If we think charity is better than taxes then why don't we also do something like that closer to home. I wonder how many who would be okay seeing less spending on refugees would support the same approach for Brits who use the same support. Especially given many people are net taker from the state. Our desire for wealth redistribution is strong within our borders and weak outside of it. Funny that.
What I would like to see is a system that helps train and integrate refugees so they can, in the long run, contribute. And maybe the same approach can be used on our poorer locals. Rather than an education system that effectively babysits kids if they live in the wrong postcode. "
Valid arguments. In a libertarian country where there isn't much social welfare, it's easy to open up your borders and say "You are free to come in. But you are on your own. Do whatever you want and earn your living"
But in a country with social welfare projects like NHS, free schooling etc, it's important that you maintain the ratio between the number of people who contribute into the pot to the number of people who take out of it. So a line must be drawn somewhere. If there is no line, the system will break down.
Passports are a valid line to draw. Even British people who lost jobs and are dependent on benefits could have contributed to the pot at some point of time. But even for people within the country, I would like to have some limit on how long they can use welfare benefits unless they have a valid reason like disability or baby care.
Completely agree with training part. But don't you think asking refugees to work before getting benefits is a step in the right direction? If they are working well, provide them training and get them to better jobs which pay more. Real hard workers will have a good life. People trying to be freeloaders will be automatically filtered off. Both sides will win.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never got an answer for why such a large group of lefties would care about what the government gives are doesn't give for asylum seekers.
Going by the internet comments, there is population large enough that really wants to give a comfortable living for asylum seekers. That's a noble thought. Given the number of people who want this, they can always form their own social funds and donate their own money to achieve that and they will be left with a lot of balance too. But for some reason, none of them are willing to do that. It's always about taking money from someone else's pocket and help others so that they can feel morally superior.
I'm probably left and probably pay a fair whack more in taxes than many.
My view is that our approach to support needs to look past passports especially on cases where we may have contributed to their homes being dangerous to them.
If we think charity is better than taxes then why don't we also do something like that closer to home. I wonder how many who would be okay seeing less spending on refugees would support the same approach for Brits who use the same support. Especially given many people are net taker from the state. Our desire for wealth redistribution is strong within our borders and weak outside of it. Funny that.
What I would like to see is a system that helps train and integrate refugees so they can, in the long run, contribute. And maybe the same approach can be used on our poorer locals. Rather than an education system that effectively babysits kids if they live in the wrong postcode.
Valid arguments. In a libertarian country where there isn't much social welfare, it's easy to open up your borders and say "You are free to come in. But you are on your own. Do whatever you want and earn your living"
But in a country with social welfare projects like NHS, free schooling etc, it's important that you maintain the ratio between the number of people who contribute into the pot to the number of people who take out of it. So a line must be drawn somewhere. If there is no line, the system will break down.
Passports are a valid line to draw. Even British people who lost jobs and are dependent on benefits could have contributed to the pot at some point of time. But even for people within the country, I would like to have some limit on how long they can use welfare benefits unless they have a valid reason like disability or baby care.
Completely agree with training part. But don't you think asking refugees to work before getting benefits is a step in the right direction? If they are working well, provide them training and get them to better jobs which pay more. Real hard workers will have a good life. People trying to be freeloaders will be automatically filtered off. Both sides will win.
"
I mentioned this above. I can see benefits in this provided it's not abused by the state to reduce costs. It's an area I'd need to think harder on before fully answering. It's probably an avenue I'd also look for long term unemployed as well to help skill up and make them more employable. Again needs to be done in the right way so not to abuse the system or mean somene with a legitimate reason doesn't lose benefits because they aren't mobile and have been told to pick up rubbish or starve. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" asylum seekers to be made to work for £1.07 an hour? that's nonsensical. can't see that standing up in an anti sl@very trail against the home office.
£1.07 PLUS free school, nhs, accommodation...... ?? I'd take it if I arrived from some hell hole that did nothing for me.... perhaps after x amount of time full rights?
you're talking obvious crap again by trying to sneak child migrants into the equation.
?? what are you on about? its you who talks crap, yeah just pay for everyone from around the world.... you can start by doubling your contributions if you like? no, i thought not.
Im saying you have to look at the overall costs, not just the £1.07 figure thats been mentioned.
in answer to your strawman, i wouldn't notice any real imapct on the enjoyment of my personal wealth to be honest.
but back to the topic, the government refuses to allow asylum seekers to work and the amount of laws they would need to change to allow themselves to pay the said asylum seekers sl@ve wages would doubtless lead to them being schooled in the courts yet again, which would be far more costly. maybe you need to deal with those facts as they stand. "
of course you wouldnt because its pretend lol and the question is more hypothetical than realistic, the british follow the danish! dont talk daft! But i personally dont think the danish are daft and they are onto something. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never got an answer for why such a large group of lefties would care about what the government gives are doesn't give for asylum seekers.
Going by the internet comments, there is population large enough that really wants to give a comfortable living for asylum seekers. That's a noble thought. Given the number of people who want this, they can always form their own social funds and donate their own money to achieve that and they will be left with a lot of balance too. But for some reason, none of them are willing to do that. It's always about taking money from someone else's pocket and help others so that they can feel morally superior.
I'm probably left and probably pay a fair whack more in taxes than many.
My view is that our approach to support needs to look past passports especially on cases where we may have contributed to their homes being dangerous to them.
If we think charity is better than taxes then why don't we also do something like that closer to home. I wonder how many who would be okay seeing less spending on refugees would support the same approach for Brits who use the same support. Especially given many people are net taker from the state. Our desire for wealth redistribution is strong within our borders and weak outside of it. Funny that.
What I would like to see is a system that helps train and integrate refugees so they can, in the long run, contribute. And maybe the same approach can be used on our poorer locals. Rather than an education system that effectively babysits kids if they live in the wrong postcode.
Valid arguments. In a libertarian country where there isn't much social welfare, it's easy to open up your borders and say "You are free to come in. But you are on your own. Do whatever you want and earn your living"
But in a country with social welfare projects like NHS, free schooling etc, it's important that you maintain the ratio between the number of people who contribute into the pot to the number of people who take out of it. So a line must be drawn somewhere. If there is no line, the system will break down.
Passports are a valid line to draw. Even British people who lost jobs and are dependent on benefits could have contributed to the pot at some point of time. But even for people within the country, I would like to have some limit on how long they can use welfare benefits unless they have a valid reason like disability or baby care.
Completely agree with training part. But don't you think asking refugees to work before getting benefits is a step in the right direction? If they are working well, provide them training and get them to better jobs which pay more. Real hard workers will have a good life. People trying to be freeloaders will be automatically filtered off. Both sides will win.
I mentioned this above. I can see benefits in this provided it's not abused by the state to reduce costs. It's an area I'd need to think harder on before fully answering. It's probably an avenue I'd also look for long term unemployed as well to help skill up and make them more employable. Again needs to be done in the right way so not to abuse the system or mean somene with a legitimate reason doesn't lose benefits because they aren't mobile and have been told to pick up rubbish or starve. "
Yes. I laugh at people usually when they bring up Scandinavian model. That's because many people don't know the amount of tax paid by even lower income people in Sweden and Denmark. But this is an area that the UK can actually learn from Scandinavia.
In Sweden, once you are on welfare after losing your job, you are supposed to report multiple times a week on how your next job search is going. They also provide all the support and advice to retrain them for jobs. But even that goes away in one year.
It would be a challenge to scale this for the UK population. But it's completely worth it. If you have enough protections like this to ensure that freeloaders cannot survive, welfare system will be stronger and people would be happy about paying taxes for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ebbie69 OP Couple
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Looks like this may be posturing. From what I can see there isn't a majority party in Denmark, and so this is just a proposed policy from the (far ish) right PM, which will likely get compromised down. But like Trump's wall etc it is a great signal to their supporters about how tough they are.
Interesting idea tho ... Difficult to pull off in practice without causing issues n"
It may be a case of throw the idea out there to see the response but it seems they have introduced several very tough measures aimed at migrants. I don't know if its good or bad but the migrants do not seem impressed and have largely stopped going to Denmark so I supose you can say theey have had success with the policies. How they get passed discrimination rules I don't know - maybe it should be applied to all. Yet to hear any comment from the EU
Just to be clear this is in Denmark not Britain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice.
Or go back to where they come from and get benefits or a job there.
Let me guess, your a Tory voting Brexit supporter , who likes Farage? ( before you ask I voted liberal in the last GE and voted to remain) "
Looks like I'm right from the Danish figures.
No matter what or who I voted for, seems that many that were going to Denmark have actually not bothered going there or looked elsewhere.
What Denmark had proposed is not law yet, and look at effect it has had.
If anything the Danish idea sums up everything that is wrong with the EU, as it seems each state has its own idea what its immigration policy should be, and in some states how high they build the walls, Ohh, don't see no outcry about those walls turning back migrants between EU states, but the UK gets criticised for a turn back policy. Maybe a Danish policy here would have the same affect.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice.
Or go back to where they come from and get benefits or a job there.
Let me guess, your a Tory voting Brexit supporter , who likes Farage? ( before you ask I voted liberal in the last GE and voted to remain)
Looks like I'm right from the Danish figures.
No matter what or who I voted for, seems that many that were going to Denmark have actually not bothered going there or looked elsewhere.
What Denmark had proposed is not law yet, and look at effect it has had.
If anything the Danish idea sums up everything that is wrong with the EU, as it seems each state has its own idea what its immigration policy should be, and in some states how high they build the walls, Ohh, don't see no outcry about those walls turning back migrants between EU states, but the UK gets criticised for a turn back policy. Maybe a Danish policy here would have the same affect.
"
I'm a bit lost. The EU approach allows countries to make their own decisions. Why is that wrong ?
And if I understand correctly, the EU countries can turn back because of the Dublin agreement. Which we were in.
I may have misunderstood but it reads like the EU are doing what you would want the UK to be able to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Aside from not having racist policies, our benefits system has a majority of people who this is irrelevant for. Almost half are people who are working but the country subsidises their low pay, whilst others are supported with care needs etc. Furlough pay has been another alternative to in work benefits. For those looking for work, there has been the requirement for people to spend their time not working to instep be applying for jobs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I read on the BBC today that Denmark are to tell migrants that they will have to work to continue to receive benefits. I believe its aimed at those that have stayed in the country on benefits without working at all for a couple of years. They are not talking about a few hours work but 37 hours per week. Apparently Denmark has some of the toughest rules in Europe and has seen migrant applications fall from 21,000 in 2015 to 851 now.
Is this the way to go or a step to far?"
It shows that being a bit stricter on how they dish out their tax money has a big impact. Contributing to the country that has taken them in does not seem unreasonable. The knock on effect could be neighbouring countries seeing an increase in applications |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
it may be a good idea to set the economically inactive early retirees to work in a similar manner until they reach retirement age. this way they can pay in to the country fully as seems to be the currently fasionable expectation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it may be a good idea to set the economically inactive early retirees to work in a similar manner until they reach retirement age. this way they can pay in to the country fully as seems to be the currently fasionable expectation. "
How dare people expect others to work and then enjoy the benefits?
Anyway to answer your question, anyone who made enough money to retire early would have also paid more tax on that money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it may be a good idea to set the economically inactive early retirees to work in a similar manner until they reach retirement age. this way they can pay in to the country fully as seems to be the currently fasionable expectation.
How dare people expect others to work and then enjoy the benefits?
Anyway to answer your question, anyone who made enough money to retire early would have also paid more tax on that money."
unless they invested in a pension.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
working would give early retirees a much needed sense of purpose and give value to their lives in the same way as any unemployed group. besides, i didn't ask any questions yet you felt it necessary to answer out of your blind righty ideology anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it may be a good idea to set the economically inactive early retirees to work in a similar manner until they reach retirement age. this way they can pay in to the country fully as seems to be the currently fasionable expectation.
How dare people expect others to work and then enjoy the benefits?
Anyway to answer your question, anyone who made enough money to retire early would have also paid more tax on that money. unless they invested in a pension...."
But pension funds have a minimum age, don't they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
early retirees should not be absolved of civic duty merely because they are wealthy. they should also be required to contribute their time to the economy in the same way that the less affluent do by working until they are 68. community service of 30 hours per week would be a huge benefit to the country. it's that simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it may be a good idea to set the economically inactive early retirees to work in a similar manner until they reach retirement age. this way they can pay in to the country fully as seems to be the currently fasionable expectation.
How dare people expect others to work and then enjoy the benefits?
Anyway to answer your question, anyone who made enough money to retire early would have also paid more tax on that money. unless they invested in a pension....
But pension funds have a minimum age, don't they? "
55. So you mean really early retirees? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For me anyone who contributes more to society than they take is welcome.
As anything not without anomolies but it always baffles me the furore over wealthy investors getting citizenship, bringing money in, creating jobs, spending. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"it may be a good idea to set the economically inactive early retirees to work in a similar manner until they reach retirement age. this way they can pay in to the country fully as seems to be the currently fasionable expectation.
How dare people expect others to work and then enjoy the benefits?
Anyway to answer your question, anyone who made enough money to retire early would have also paid more tax on that money. unless they invested in a pension....
But pension funds have a minimum age, don't they? 55. So you mean really early retirees? "
There are limits on how much you can get tax relief on pension funds. And the pension that gets paid out itself is taxed. So the math does work out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"how dare they not contribute for 13 years. disgusting. "
They do contribute taxes for those 13 years. And not as disgusting as not willing to contribute anything and expecting money when being in sound physical state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
"Does this mean exploitation of migrants? Give them shit jobs for low wages?
Yes, or they can get off their arse and pick a job of there own choice.
Or go back to where they come from and get benefits or a job there.
Let me guess, your a Tory voting Brexit supporter , who likes Farage? ( before you ask I voted liberal in the last GE and voted to remain)
Looks like I'm right from the Danish figures.
No matter what or who I voted for, seems that many that were going to Denmark have actually not bothered going there or looked elsewhere.
What Denmark had proposed is not law yet, and look at effect it has had.
If anything the Danish idea sums up everything that is wrong with the EU, as it seems each state has its own idea what its immigration policy should be, and in some states how high they build the walls, Ohh, don't see no outcry about those walls turning back migrants between EU states, but the UK gets criticised for a turn back policy. Maybe a Danish policy here would have the same affect.
I'm a bit lost. The EU approach allows countries to make their own decisions. Why is that wrong ?
And if I understand correctly, the EU countries can turn back because of the Dublin agreement. Which we were in.
I may have misunderstood but it reads like the EU are doing what you would want the UK to be able to do. "
The UK is no longer a member of the Dublin agreement. So return of migrants has to back to their original country.
Anyone arriving in the EU can apply in the first country they arrive in and ask to go to a state of their choice. However, not the UK as we have left the agreement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
Strangely Demarks proposal as some have identified does not change their immigration law as it would also affect Danish citizens as well, but it seems to have had a massive effect on their immigration numbers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
