She has been working in the HA for at least 4 years and she knows her stuff (and she's Romanian
my best friends wife)Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
She has been working in the HA for at least 4 years and she knows her stuff (and she's Romanian
my best friends wife)
Associate
She has been working in the HA for at least 4 years and she knows her stuff (and she's Romanian
Well I don't know about the housing benefit but I see nothing that discriminates against EU nationals for WTC or CTC should they have kids.
that would be illegal would it not?
as we cant discriminate again st them.
unless all British people cannot claim benefits until they are 21.
Cameron's deal centres on child benefits for children not living in the UK. At the moment, EU migrants get the full UK child benefit allowance for children living in a different country. After the deal goes through, the amount paid out will vary depending on the cost of living in the child's country of residence.
I only got a brief text, but it looks like the 5 years was a simplistic answer and mostly related to Housing Benefit
I've found this which seems to explain things, no surprise it seems complicated and I'm at work so have only scan read some of it
http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/de...EEA Entitlements guidance June 2014 FINAL.pdf
Associate
Tax credits too.
On in-work benefits: The Council would authorise that Member State to limit the access of newly arriving EU workers to non-contributory in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment. The limitation should be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing access to such benefits to take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host Member State. The authorisation would have a limited duration and apply to EU workers newly arriving during a period of 7 years.
Soldato
Even including tax credits, the benefits they are entitled to is very limited and that is if they meet the criteria required. The argument of benefit stealing migrants is an overblown one and is also getting attention from our government in the form of introductions of stricter requirements and more caps on benefits dependant on circumstance.
I can think of a reasonable or two argument that can be made to leave but migrants stealing jobs/benefits is not one of them.
I can think of a reasonable or two argument that can be made to leave but migrants stealing jobs/benefits is not one of them.
Associate
Nobody said stealing. I was merely offsetting against any tax take.
Soldato
now you know what limits there are for migrants on benefits, do you still believe they pay less tax than they cost?
If so, then the issue lies with the management of expenditure for our services.
Economic migrants from the EU can no longer claim as many benefits as the locals, don't usually bring children which add to the cost of education/public health and were educated at the cost of their native country. Even if they do low paid jobs like shelf stacking, they are jobs which need to be done and they would still pay tax. With all this in mind, they seem to cost the state far less than most groups in society.
If so, then the issue lies with the management of expenditure for our services.
Economic migrants from the EU can no longer claim as many benefits as the locals, don't usually bring children which add to the cost of education/public health and were educated at the cost of their native country. Even if they do low paid jobs like shelf stacking, they are jobs which need to be done and they would still pay tax. With all this in mind, they seem to cost the state far less than most groups in society.
They don't just contribute to the treasury via direct payroll taxation though do they.
They are consumers so you have VAT, Duty, increased tax on business profits etc all due to them being economically active in the economy
Associate
Using quick dirty internet maths approx £1625 in tax and NI (assuming minimum wage at 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year). No arguing about some of the other groups in Britain, i.e. the work shy locals or that other group of first or second gen immigrants rightly or wrongly labelled as work shy, costing more. So surely something should have been done about them taking these jobs rather than adding more people into the mix. Of course this is a different topic altogether and only tenuously linked to the EU.
Soldato
You missed out all the other forms of taxation they pay which is the main bulk of it VAT and such.
I don't think we are in short supply of low income work having worked in a few industries which rely on these jobs to support the business and so migrants are welcome to come and fill in the gaps.
Also i dont believe by leaving the EU, anything significant will change in terms of economic migrants
I don't think we are in short supply of low income work having worked in a few industries which rely on these jobs to support the business and so migrants are welcome to come and fill in the gaps.
Also i dont believe by leaving the EU, anything significant will change in terms of economic migrants
Last edited:
Soldato
Are you promising that tobacco duty will be significantly reduced in the case of an exit ? I doubt it.
Soldato
I specifically said duty-paid ciggies.
Caporegime
Your first quote comes from this passage:
There are major issues, though. Nationally, economists find immigration leads to an increase in average wages. The effects, though, are not even.
The rise is driven by the fact that people in the top half see their wages grow faster. Those at the very bottom see their wages grow more slowly. It is important to stress that these effects are very small at a national level - just a few pennies an hour either way.
Those effects, however, can be turbocharged in sectors or places where there have been major inflows. Boston is one such place: the extreme levels of immigration means the effects are all much bigger.
The town's businesses have created an unusual number of jobs and richer local people have done very well - but the squeeze on the poorer end is more extreme.
You can see that in the local pay statistics. Boston has always been a low-pay town. But it is now an exceptionally low-paid place.
The average hourly wage nationally is £13.33. Across the East Midlands, it is £12.26. In Boston, it is £9.13. On a weekly basis, full-time earnings are more than £100 a week less than the national average.
The rise is driven by the fact that people in the top half see their wages grow faster. Those at the very bottom see their wages grow more slowly. It is important to stress that these effects are very small at a national level - just a few pennies an hour either way.
Those effects, however, can be turbocharged in sectors or places where there have been major inflows. Boston is one such place: the extreme levels of immigration means the effects are all much bigger.
The town's businesses have created an unusual number of jobs and richer local people have done very well - but the squeeze on the poorer end is more extreme.
You can see that in the local pay statistics. Boston has always been a low-pay town. But it is now an exceptionally low-paid place.
The average hourly wage nationally is £13.33. Across the East Midlands, it is £12.26. In Boston, it is £9.13. On a weekly basis, full-time earnings are more than £100 a week less than the national average.
If a student wrote that in a paper I was marking, I'd mark them down for it. It gives the utterly false impression that their source supports their implication that immigration has reduced local wages when, in fact, if you read the linked paper it does the opposite and it certainly doesn't explain their misleading wage comparison of Boston to the rest of the East Midlands.
Last edited:
Permabanned
A very balanced and salient article by Trevor Phillips in the Telegraph on the 10th of May and another in the Mail this morning, supporting those that see unfettered migration as their greatest concern.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ing-to-catastrophe-over-race-trevor-phillips/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...iberals-no-longer-ignore-TREVOR-PHILLIPS.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ing-to-catastrophe-over-race-trevor-phillips/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...iberals-no-longer-ignore-TREVOR-PHILLIPS.html
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
There is a single person doing the xenophobic argument and one believes that locals are unduly treat worse (not necessarily saying anything untoward or bad about the others though) so don't act so childish. 18 comments with one particularly bad one and you're policing the internet already?
Might be worth adding a warning for the sensitive but if you read it objectionally there is only one truly negative post in that thread.
Soldato
Chris, you seem to be deluded over what differences leaving the EU would make for immigration.
Tell me specifically what you think may happen if we left the EU in terms of economic migrants and the current refugees. Don't give me that 'take back our borders' nonsense, tell me what limits we would rid ourselves of and therefore what powers we will likely get.
Tell me specifically what you think may happen if we left the EU in terms of economic migrants and the current refugees. Don't give me that 'take back our borders' nonsense, tell me what limits we would rid ourselves of and therefore what powers we will likely get.
- Status