Labour Party politics

Hrolf The Ganger said:
So you are saying that our current economic woes are down to Brexit?

Not Covid? Or the cost of energy? Or the supply problems caused by the Ukraine war? Or the increasing size of the welfare state? Or the cost of housing illegal immigrants? Or mismanagement by the current government?

Whatever effect Brexit has had, it will be worth it to avoid being in the United States of Europe. There is no fearmongering about the progression from a trading block to where the EU is now and where it is going, if it continues in the same direction.
Click to expand...
Well the stats largely support it, so I will go with them. £100bn lost a year is a lot.

The cost of about £4.7bn for housing asylum seekers is alarming and need also come down. However, the cost to the public purse of housing illegal immigrants is precisely £zero because they are illegal.

The bulging welfare state is largely down to our ageing population. The remedy is obviously means tested state pension. Pretty much pay for everything. However, do you see that as likely? Look at the tiny tinkering with winter fuel and the TV license. And see what is happening in France. Nope, this country will be lugging behind the GDP of Sub-Saharan African nations before pensioners give up their state pension and associated benefits.

The comment "...or mismanagement by the current government..." is too non-specific Daily Express to comment on. Give me some costed examples. I may even agree with you.
 
silvertop said:
Well the stats largely support it, so I will go with them. £100bn lost a year is a lot.

The cost of about £4.7bn for housing asylum seekers is alarming and need also come down. However, the cost to the public purse of housing illegal immigrants is precisely £zero because they are illegal.

The bulging welfare state is largely down to our ageing population. The remedy is obviously means tested state pension. Pretty much pay for everything. However, do you see that as likely? Look at the tiny tinkering with winter fuel and the TV license. And see what is happening in France. Nope, this country will be lugging behind the GDP of Sub-Saharan African nations before pensioners give up their state pension and associated benefits.

The comment "...or mismanagement by the current government..." is too non-specific Daily Express to comment on. Give me some costed examples. I may even agree with you.
Click to expand...
Illegality is not free. Even if the illegal immigrants weren't housed - which they are - then holding them, charging them, feeding them, processing them and (rarely) deporting them costs tens of thousands each. Meaning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants cost at least 100s of millions.
However, a look at the stats of how much asylum seekers cost will tell you the illegal immigrants are costing billions. I make it around 2 billion a year. You can do your own maths with the official figures if you like. The government states Asylum seekers' accommodation was 2.7 billion, yet there's an overall figure of 4.7 billion. Roughly 2 billion on non asylum seekers. I presume they are the illegals.
 
silvertop said:
Well the stats largely support it, so I will go with them. £100bn lost a year is a lot.

The cost of about £4.7bn for housing asylum seekers is alarming and need also come down. However, the cost to the public purse of housing illegal immigrants is precisely £zero because they are illegal.

The bulging welfare state is largely down to our ageing population. The remedy is obviously means tested state pension. Pretty much pay for everything. However, do you see that as likely? Look at the tiny tinkering with winter fuel and the TV license. And see what is happening in France. Nope, this country will be lugging behind the GDP of Sub-Saharan African nations before pensioners give up their state pension and associated benefits.

The comment "...or mismanagement by the current government..." is too non-specific Daily Express to comment on. Give me some costed examples. I may even agree with you.
Click to expand...
Is this some sort of lefty word play? To be an asylum seeker, you have to apply through the correct channels, not cross one on a dinghy. Who is paying for all those hotels?

I don't contest the fact that Brexit had some financial negatives, but it also has the potential to be very profitable in the longer term. But you admit that Brexit is not the biggest problem but in fact our own domestic costs.

I have no idea why you think pensioners should give up their entitlement. They earned it,
unlike the thousands of foreign spongers who come here to sign on.

No doubt, you wouldn't want to deprive them of their benefits or big houses to keep their 10 children and all the brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents and cousins who want to come and join them.
 
ASCPFC said:
Illegality is not free. Even if the illegal immigrants weren't housed - which they are - then holding them, charging them, feeding them, processing them and (rarely) deporting them costs tens of thousands each. Meaning the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants cost at least 100s of millions.
However, a look at the stats of how much asylum seekers cost will tell you the illegal immigrants are costing billions. I make it around 2 billion a year. You can do your own maths with the official figures if you like. The government states Asylum seekers' accommodation was 2.7 billion, yet there's an overall figure of 4.7 billion. Roughly 2 billion on non asylum seekers. I presume they are the illegals.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that is the maths. I accept that illegal immigrants need to be caught, detained ("housed" is an interesting word to use here) and deported which carries a sizeable cost. However, even if it is, would that be the gross cost?

One of the major pulls of migrants to this country is our thriving black economy. Illegals (not asylum seekers) ordinarily work.

Leaving out the debate on whether they are taking our jobs, the nothing fed into the public purse through (non paid) tax and the fact they should not be here (!), such work must by definition produce. And with their earnings, they consume.

The net cost must, therefore, be considerably lower.

Either way, a drop in the Brexit Loss ocean.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
Is this some sort of lefty word play? To be an asylum seeker, you have to apply through the correct channels, not cross one on a dinghy. Who is paying for all those hotels?

I don't contest the fact that Brexit had some financial negatives, but it also has the potential to be very profitable in the longer term. But you admit that Brexit is not the biggest problem but in fact our own domestic costs.

I have no idea why you think pensioners should give up their entitlement. They earned it,
unlike the thousands of foreign spongers who come here to sign on.

No doubt, you wouldn't want to deprive them of their benefits or big houses to keep their 10 children and all the brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents and cousins who want to come and join them.
Click to expand...
How so? It is only due to the distortion of pension rights that people now take as read and get very angry if challenged.

The clue is in the name. National insurance. Not national annuity. You should pay to have cover to ensure you have welfare benefits if you fall out of work, healthcare if you fall sick, and provision after you retire if you are below a certain wealth threshold. It should be designed to avoid elderly poverty. It should never have been a payment as of right just for reaching a certain age. After all, what insurance policy do you know that pays out if none of the insured risks occur? But that is what it has morphed into.

And "earned" is a funny word to use as state pensions are primarily paid from taxes levied on those who work. How did a pensioner "earn" the taxes I am paying?

On one point we agree. Immigrants who have not paid sufficient or indeed any contributions to NI should not be entitled to any benefits, healthcare or state pension.
 
silvertop said:
How so? It is only due to the distortion of pension rights that people now take as read and get very angry if challenged.

The clue is in the name. National insurance. Not national annuity. You should pay to have cover to ensure you have welfare benefits if you fall out of work, healthcare if you fall sick, and provision after you retire if you are below a certain wealth threshold. It should be designed to avoid elderly poverty. It should never have been a payment as of right just for reaching a certain age. After all, what insurance policy do you know that pays out if none of the insured risks occur? But that is what it has morphed into.

And "earned" is a funny word to use as state pensions are primarily paid from taxes levied on those who work. How did a pensioner "earn" the taxes I am paying?

On one point we agree. Immigrants who have not paid sufficient or indeed any contributions to NI should not be entitled to any benefits, healthcare or state pension.
Click to expand...
So people who do well and manage money should be penalised?

How lefty of you.

Governments are essentially to blame for this. They have not incentivised people to have more children, and have instead created a country where more and more couples have to work full time.

Then to try and quick fix this, they import millions of foreigners.

That has gone well.

The freedom for women to choose not to have many or any children hasn't gone very well either.

Thanks Mr Pincus.
 
silvertop said:
How so? It is only due to the distortion of pension rights that people now take as read and get very angry if challenged.

The clue is in the name. National insurance. Not national annuity. You should pay to have cover to ensure you have welfare benefits if you fall out of work, healthcare if you fall sick, and provision after you retire if you are below a certain wealth threshold. It should be designed to avoid elderly poverty. It should never have been a payment as of right just for reaching a certain age. After all, what insurance policy do you know that pays out if none of the insured risks occur? But that is what it has morphed into.

And "earned" is a funny word to use as state pensions are primarily paid from taxes levied on those who work. How did a pensioner "earn" the taxes I am paying?

On one point we agree. Immigrants who have not paid sufficient or indeed any contributions to NI should not be entitled to any benefits, healthcare or state pension.
Click to expand...
What would the wealth threshold be?
The full rate old age pension, if they haven't found some way to gyp you out of any of it, is just over half the minimum wage rate so it's not as though anyone is living the high life on it.
 
silvertop said:
How so? It is only due to the distortion of pension rights that people now take as read and get very angry if challenged.

The clue is in the name. National insurance. Not national annuity. You should pay to have cover to ensure you have welfare benefits if you fall out of work, healthcare if you fall sick, and provision after you retire if you are below a certain wealth threshold. It should be designed to avoid elderly poverty. It should never have been a payment as of right just for reaching a certain age. After all, what insurance policy do you know that pays out if none of the insured risks occur? But that is what it has morphed into.

And "earned" is a funny word to use as state pensions are primarily paid from taxes levied on those who work. How did a pensioner "earn" the taxes I am paying?

On one point we agree. Immigrants who have not paid sufficient or indeed any contributions to NI should not be entitled to any benefits, healthcare or state pension.
Click to expand...
Th state pension is broken and not fit for purpose. Apparently people need about £22k to live on so that is 10k short. What is the point of a pension scheme that doesn't pay people enough, so the government tops is up with other benefits if that is the person's only income.

We need a new compulsory pension scheme, one that people cannot opt out of and one where the money they save is theirs and not paid to some other slacker. It will take decades to correct the current system but it's the only viable option.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
So people who do well and manage money should be penalised?

How lefty of you.

Governments are essentially to blame for this. They have not incentivised people to have more children, and have instead created a country where more and more couples have to work full time.

Then to try and quick fix this, they import millions of foreigners.

That has gone well.

The freedom for women to choose not to have many or any children hasn't gone very well either.

Thanks Mr Pincus.
Click to expand...
I am advocating less welfare and that makes me a "lefty"??

Time to look in the mirror, comrade.

😉

Oh and your first sentence could also say: So I am earning a wage so I should be "penalised" (your word) by not being paid universal credit.
 
silvertop said:
I am advocating less welfare and that makes me a "lefty"??

Time to look in the mirror, comrade.

😉

Oh and your first sentence could also say: So I am earning a wage so I should be "penalised" (your word) by not being paid universal credit.
Click to expand...
Means testing for pensions is fundamentally wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top