UK Benefits Farce.

[7by7]

7x7............Do agree with me that migrants given permission to work in the UK...NOT immigrants.... are claiming benefits from UK tax payers cos their sums don't add up......?

How do you define the difference between a migrant and an immigrant?

As previously shown, immigrants cannot claim public funds until they have ILR; which takes at least 5 years to obtain. During which time many of them have been working and paying tax and NICs, and for those who haven't their British family member has; otherwise the financial requirement for their initial visa, FLR and ILR would not have been met. Not to mention the vast profit made by the Exchequer from the fees for visa and LTR applications; a profit to be even greater soon when the fees go up by around 25% in April. Plus the NHS surcharge as well.

If by 'migrants' you mean asylum seekers, then again I have explained and shown what they receive and the minimal cost of that to the taxpayer.

If you mean illegal immigrants or absconders; I asked before how someone who is hiding from the authorities can claim anything without bringing themselves to the attention of those authorities; no one has yet answered.

[7by7]

jpinx,

I agree that the state pension is not high enough.

There are many reasons for this; the main one being the way it is funded. You can look up the historical reasons for this in full detail if you like; but in short the pensioner population is growing as people live longer and so the ratio between workers, who fund the system, and pensioners, who receive the money, is decreasing.

Removing the minimal benefits paid to asylum seekers would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

nontabury,

You can deny that you are an immigrant in Thailand all you like; but if you live there then you are. But as you believe "these days there are very few public computers in library's" means the same as "very few library's provide computers for the general public" it is obvious that your English comprehension is somewhat lacking. A sad condemnation of the UK education system.

Most, the vast majority in fact, of immigrants to the UK are not a drain on the UK economy. On the contrary, they contribute to it through their taxes and NICs.

Again I ask; how did that librarian know the people using the computers were immigrants? Their library cards would not have said so for the simple reason that no library I have found asks for a potential member's immigration status.

You final paragraph is your usual defensive self justification; just like your regular dismissal of facts which you dislike and which prove you wrong as 'diversions.'

But you are correct when you say that benefit fraud by members of the majority white British population costs the Exchequer far more than benefits paid to asylum seekers; something I have been saying ever since I joined this topic.

I have provided the facts; facts which show the true situation about who can claim what and what it costs the UK tax payer.

That you and others are resorting to more and more desperate barrel scraping to 'prove' your point merely shows the desperation of your position.

BTW, you call me a 'fanatical left winger' because I knw those facts and report them; says more about you than I.

Transam,

Not my fault if you cannot understand the answer showing that immigrants/migrants in the UK, whether they have permission to work or not, cannot claim benefits until they have ILR.

Nor that you cannot understand the many previous posts where I have explained who can claim what; work visa holders can't claim any income related benefits for example.

So to keep it so simple that even you will understand; no, I don't agree.

[Jip99]

Nontabury is an alien.

[jpinx]

jpinx,

I agree that the state pension is not high enough.

There are many reasons for this; the main one being the way it is funded. You can look up the historical reasons for this in full detail if you like; but in short the pensioner population is growing as people live longer and so the ratio between workers, who fund the system, and pensioners, who receive the money, is decreasing.

Removing the minimal benefits paid to asylum seekers would be akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

.................

.............in other words -- it's a Ponzi scheme. Illegal if anyones else tries to run a scheme like that. Governments place themselves above the law -- no wonder there's so much active debate on this issue.....

[nontabury]

Nontabury is an alien.

True,according to the Thai authorities. And they are the ones who set the rules.

[7by7]

All immigrants are aliens, until and unless they take their host country's citizenship.

Not all aliens are immigrants; they may be tourists for example.

Whatever you call yourself, you are a foreigner living in Thailand who objects strongly to foreigners living in the UK.

[nontabury]

nontabury,

You can deny that you are an immigrant in Thailand all you like; but if you live there then you are. But as you believe "these days there are very few public computers in library's" means the same as "very few library's provide computers for the general public" it is obvious that your English comprehension is somewhat lacking. A sad condemnation of the UK education system.

Most, the vast majority in fact, of immigrants to the UK are not a drain on the UK economy. On the contrary, they contribute to it through their taxes and NICs.

Again I ask; how did that librarian know the people using the computers were immigrants? Their library cards would not have said so for the simple reason that no library I have found asks for a potential member's immigration status.

You final paragraph is your usual defensive self justification; just like your regular dismissal of facts which you dislike and which prove you wrong as 'diversions.'

But you are correct when you say that benefit fraud by members of the majority white British population costs the Exchequer far more than benefits paid to asylum seekers; something I have been saying ever since I joined this topic.

I have provided the facts; facts which show the true situation about who can claim what and what it costs the UK tax payer.

That you and others are resorting to more and more desperate barrel scraping to 'prove' your point merely shows the desperation of your position.

BTW, you call me a 'fanatical left winger' because I knw those facts and report them; says more about you than I.

Transam,

Not my fault if you cannot understand the answer showing that immigrants/migrants in the UK, whether they have permission to work or not, cannot claim benefits until they have ILR.

Nor that you cannot understand the many previous posts where I have explained who can claim what; work visa holders can't claim any income related benefits for example.

So to keep it so simple that even you will understand; no, I don't agree.

Well according to the Thai government I am a NONE IMMIGRANT. And I think they set the rules for Thailand, not some far left fanatic living in the UK.

I would agree with you that my education ( under a Labour controlled education authority ) is not up to yours, however some people tend to think that the best education comes from experience and being able to differentiate between Common sense and bullshit.

Further more my very limited education did not stop me from earning enough money to be able to retire in Thailand at 50 yrs old, unlike you who are still working at 60, in the Uk supported by your Thai wife, who at least until further recently was still having to work.

Again I repeat that the Library assistants were adamant that they were economic migrants.

I certainly do Not object to foreigners living and working in the UK, as long as they are paying their own way and not being a burden on those hard working Brits.

Again I repeat that these economic immigrants are a drain on the British taxpayers. Keep on spouting your far left bias, you never know someday someone may be taken in by it.

Edited January 15, 2016 by nontabury

[7by7]

Yet again you ignore facts and resort to childish insults and self aggrandising bragging when you have lost the argument.

I'll leave you to it.

[Craig krup]

How much of the total income tax take in the UK comes from the top 1% of income tax payers? Over 30%.

How much is the total welfare bill, including the pension (which many get without contributing) and local authority expenditure? About £240bn

How much would a single person have to earn, assuming they have no real health problems, before they're a net contributor? About £27,000

We've been living off the proceeds of the plant and machinery that resulted from being the first industrial nation, and off the taxes collected from the rich, for decades. The issue isn't whether migrants are grabbing more than they're contributing, but what the political consequences will be of an increased number of people who aren't net contributors trying to live off the same fixed pool of capital and net contributors.

We're almost all on the mooch, and the arrival of migrants is just making us face that.

[GuestHouse]

As we all know,there are tens of thousands of what is loosely called asylum seekers (economic immigrants) who are living off the British taxpayers. We must also add onto the known cost of supporting these people the extras, such as the the salary's of those running the system.

A few yrs back while in the UK I went to the post office.There was a long queue, due to a number of these so called asylum seekers who were being advised by social workers how to use the services of the PO, they had even been taken around town to the banks etc. Who do you think was paying the salary's of these social workers. Likewise visited the local library,were they had approximately 30 computers for use by the public, 29 occupied by immigrants( information supplied by angry staff member) again who was paying for all this. So it's not only the direct cost that the public know about, but also these extras. Are you part of these extras,7x7. I ask this as you do not seem to think that the cost issues are important or even relevant.

I think we can be assured that the necessary fiscal support of all our welfare and social services, regardless of who receives them is being paid for by people who pay taxes to HMRC, many are not British, and quite a few are not even in the UK.

I'm rather encouraged by the second statement of your's that I have highlighted above. Not that I agree with what you have said, but that you seem to at least of grasped the idea that you might go to a library to get some information. That you have chosen the rants of an angry staff member over the knowledge you might have discovered in the library's books is something of a disappointment, but you've made a good start and I can only encourage you to head for the book cases on your next visit.

[jpinx]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/nov/10/eu-migrants-claiming-benefits-questions-the-government-must-answer

all of which only goes to prove that you can believe NOTHING about the numbers being bandied around

P.S. -- good find Transam -- we need a lot more reality like this

Edited January 16, 2016 by jpinx

[Craig krup]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/nov/10/eu-migrants-claiming-benefits-questions-the-government-must-answer

The Guardian is a remorselessly "progressive" newspaper. "Progressive is defined, of course, of being in favour of niceness on each and every occasion without wondering about where it'll all end, and without thinking that some basic understanding of economics is necessary to manage the affairs of a nation, or to comment on them. Channel 4 News is effectively the broadcasting arm of the Guardian. They've been repeatedly saying that migrants are a great economic plus because they boost the total GDP figure. I emailed them to say that if they said something this cretinous one more time I'd make an Ofcom complaint. I also explained why what they said was nonsensical/. With the boneheaded Marxist Paul Mason as their economic correspondent it's no wonder that they're happy to go live at seven and say twelve nonsensical things before the adverts. University academics provide academic heft to stupid claims - remember the London university clowns who compared tax receipts from all migrants with welfare and judged there to be no problem as they paid more tax than they received benefits. Yeah - as if all they receive is welfare, and as if looking at a young cohort gives an accurate picture of the demands they'll make as they grow older, have kids and become infirm.

The Guardian link about pretty much makes it clear why the situation is very serious. But a much simpler way to think of all of this is to look at everything the British state provides and divided it by the total population. Now not everything will increase with population, but most things will. The state spends £700,000,000,000 - seven hundred billion, or seven hundred thousand million. If we had 70 million people in the country that would be ten grand each. So anyone who pays less than ten grand in tax is a net moocher.

A secondary school place is about £7,500. The NHS per head is £2,000. None of us want to face the fact that the total number of net contributors is very low. The people who are coming in could be as economically successful as the average Brit and the whole thing will still blow up in our faces. Of course it's quite unlikely they'll actually match the output of the average Brit, thanks to language problems and poor early education if nothing else. Saying that the children of the migrants are the future population is also boneheaded: if they have the same net recipient status as their parents the problem just keeps getting worse.

But hey, ho: I'll be fine. If nobody wants to think it'll be great to watch the reckoning from a distance.

[jpinx]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/nov/10/eu-migrants-claiming-benefits-questions-the-government-must-answer

The Guardian is a remorselessly "progressive" newspaper. "Progressive is defined, of course, of being in favour of niceness on each and every occasion without wondering about where it'll all end, and without thinking that some basic understanding of economics is necessary to manage the affairs of a nation, or to comment on them. Channel 4 News is effectively the broadcasting arm of the Guardian. They've been repeatedly saying that migrants are a great economic plus because they boost the total GDP figure. I emailed them to say that if they said something this cretinous one more time I'd make an Ofcom complaint. I also explained why what they said was nonsensical/. With the boneheaded Marxist Paul Mason as their economic correspondent it's no wonder that they're happy to go live at seven and say twelve nonsensical things before the adverts. University academics provide academic heft to stupid claims - remember the London university clowns who compared tax receipts from all migrants with welfare and judged there to be no problem as they paid more tax than they received benefits. Yeah - as if all they receive is welfare, and as if looking at a young cohort gives an accurate picture of the demands they'll make as they grow older, have kids and become infirm.

The Guardian link about pretty much makes it clear why the situation is very serious. But a much simpler way to think of all of this is to look at everything the British state provides and divided it by the total population. Now not everything will increase with population, but most things will. The state spends £700,000,000,000 - seven hundred billion, or seven hundred thousand million. If we had 70 million people in the country that would be ten grand each. So anyone who pays less than ten grand in tax is a net moocher.

A secondary school place is about £7,500. The NHS per head is £2,000. None of us want to face the fact that the total number of net contributors is very low. The people who are coming in could be as economically successful as the average Brit and the whole thing will still blow up in our faces. Of course it's quite unlikely they'll actually match the output of the average Brit, thanks to language problems and poor early education if nothing else. Saying that the children of the migrants are the future population is also boneheaded: if they have the same net recipient status as their parents the problem just keeps getting worse.

But hey, ho: I'll be fine. If nobody wants to think it'll be great to watch the reckoning from a distance.

That's a nice simplification. Unfortunately, as an individual, we pay every year even if we use nothing, but as a government Ponzi scheme they spend everything (and more) every year. NOTHING is held over till next year.

BTW -- go the Ofcom complaint!

[Celer et Audax]

OK, I accept that your interpretation of the word 'loophole' in this context differs from that published in every dictionary.

The fact remains that an immigrant's entitlement to public funds is extremely limited; even those from EEA countries are not entitled to as much as the general public seem to believe.

I am not disputing that benefit fraud is a problem. It is a crime and anyone who knows, or suspects that, someone is committing it can report it anonymously here,

But, as acknowledged earlier in this topic, it is not a crime restricted to immigrants, legal or otherwise. Most offenders are white British.

However, as is obvious from the OP onwards, some people here are not interested in that; they simply want to have yet another dig at immigrants in general and Muslims, British or not, in particular.

"White British" wow imagine if someone was to use the phrase Black British there would be uproar