REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[visage]

Which tax concessions for the rich need reversing though? Corporation tax too low? Anybody know what the shortfall in funding for public services is - off my head about £200Billion a year might be necessary if we continue with the free movement of labour. How do we plan for the population increase in terms of public services and what is our limit on how much we can borrow. A couple of trillion?

Free movement of labour generates a net *profit* not loss. To say that we need extra money to cope with immigration is wrong - if we abolished immigration we'd make a net loss.

 

[visage]

If we say, pay £28K per year as a national income irrespective of having a job (because some can't be forced) and scrap benefits, how much do we need to take off the Tory donors and what is the limit on our national debt? I think this is the way forward - might take a year or two off myself. What is a sensible control of migration in this scenario and how would you control it?

Why would I want to control something that enriches us?

 

[Penk Wolf]

Isn't that called overtrading? But wouldn't that open up a few tax dodges to get around it? Turn your assets into liabilities. Wouldn't it be better to tax the personal income of those that own businesses and leave the rest as a social enterprise?

Not at all, it just means that their profit is being used to service their debt. I'm sure clever accountants will find loopholes, but that is no different today. What it would mean is that we'll see less companies going to the wall and less redundancies. I don't have the figures, but more companies go bust making a profit than those that make a loss.

If we can borrow another trillion though that'll pay for the shortfall and the expected rise in population - what's stopping us? That'll keep us going for another twenty years or so.[/QUOTE]

That in a nutshell is the difference between Conservatives and Labour. Labour would use the extra trillion to help people where Conservatives would rather reduce it and see people struggle.

 

[Johnny75]

A question for all of those wanting to control immigration. If our infrastructure could cope with 1m more people comfortably* would you still want to control EU immigration and would you have voted to leave?



*I am not in anyway suggesting that immigration is a burden on our services or that our infrastructure is poor as a result of the EU.

 

[Papper]

£28k as universal income is absurd, no one is remotely suggesting that.

Someone on JSA currently picks up about £3,200 a year I believe.

I'm not that far off. Think there is a household benefits cap of £25K. Individually perhaps the same when you take into account the costs of living.

 

[Johnny75]

That in a nutshell is the difference between Conservatives and Labour. Labour would use the extra trillion to help people where Conservatives would rather reduce it and see people struggle.

I think that's a one eyed view, the Conservatives, tradiotinally would rather reduce it and let the free market work itself out. Of course in practice there would be a balance between the two approaches, you can't just spend, spend, spend as you will eventually end up as Greece.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I think that's a one eyed view, the Conservatives, tradiotinally would rather reduce it and let the free market work itself out. Of course in practice there would be a balance between the two approaches, you can't just spend, spend, spend as you will eventually end up as Greece.

Isn't that pretty much agreeing with what I just said?

 

[Papper]

Not at all, it just means that their profit is being used to service their debt. I'm sure clever accountants will find loopholes, but that is no different today. What it would mean is that we'll see less companies going to the wall and less redundancies. I don't have the figures, but more companies go bust making a profit than those that make a loss.

I'd be more inclined to tax what they draw from the business (a tax on personal assets) rather than the business themselves. That might encourage the rich to pay higher wages.

That in a nutshell is the difference between Conservatives and Labour. Labour would use the extra trillion to help people where Conservatives would rather reduce it and see people struggle.

No that's quite true. Borrow more, open door policy to keep they economy booming another trillion or so in government bonds to keep a few happy and we're done. What happens if we can't afford the repayments though?

 

[Penk Wolf]

No that's quite true. Borrow more, open door policy to keep they economy booming another trillion or so in government bonds to keep a few happy and we're done. What happens if we can't afford the repayments though?

I would hope that whoever is in control would know exactly where we need to stop, so we are always in a position to meet the repayments.

 

[Johnny75]

Isn't that pretty much agreeing with what I just said?

Harsh, I'm not sure 'letting people struggle' is right though.

It is more looking at it that if help people to get up the ladder then all well and good but everybody has to help themselves too. True free market economics can't work.

 

[visage]

I'd be more inclined to tax what they draw from the business (a tax on personal assets) rather than the business themselves. That might encourage the rich to pay higher wages.




No that's quite true. Borrow more, open door policy to keep they economy booming another trillion or so in government bonds to keep a few happy and we're done. What happens if we can't afford the repayments though?

But if we close that 'open door' we'll have to borrow even more...

 

[Papper]

I would hope that whoever is in control would know exactly where we need to stop, so we are always in a position to meet the repayments.

Could that be when spending exceeds more than what they are recovering in tax receipts? Mind you another £60billion a year for twenty years might be okay. In the meantime scrap corporation tax and tax the assets of business owners. Reduce lower rate of tax to say 15%, higher to 30% and the super rich increase to perhaps 55%. Guarantee all £25K a year. An extra £200Billion towards public services. Jobs a good un ..

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Scrap capitalism. Start again. Seems to have worked out pretty well in Star Trek.

 

[Papper]

But if we close that 'open door' we'll have to borrow even more...

The problem with guaranteeing a minimum income of £25K so they are not reliant on welfare means that you'll probably get quite a lot more who'll not like to be forced to work so you would need an open door to keep the economy going.

 

[Papper]

Scrap capitalism. Start again. Seems to have worked out pretty well in Star Trek.

Post of the thread. Close it. Done. Fin.

 

[visage]

The problem with guaranteeing a minimum income of £25K so they are not reliant on welfare means that you'll probably get quite a lot more who'll not like to be forced to work so you would need an open door to keep the economy going.

Thats a separate issue. Right here, right now, under our current arrangements, immigrants as a whole give the exchequer more than they take. I dont know how to put it more simply.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I'm not that far off. Think there is a household benefits cap of £25K. Individually perhaps the same when you take into account the costs of living.

You're miles off. Do you know what fraction of benefit claimants pick up that much? It's probably less than the proportion of goals scored this season in the Championship by Wolves strikers.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

You're miles off. Do you know what fraction of benefit claimants pick up that much? It's probably less than the proportion of goals scored this season in the Championship by Wolves strikers.

OK. I live in a rural location. I went into my local co op today. There were 4 people in the queue in front of me . 2 I know are single mums not working. 1 is a married lady not working invalidity benefit. 1 gent long term unemployed. All 4 bought either cigarettes or tobacco.3 of the 4 bought lottery tickets or scratch cards. 1 bought 4 x £5 cards. I have worked all my life. I cant afford to spunk money like that. When I see it happening so often is it any wonder I doubt the sysdtem and feel misanthropic?

 

[thehistorymakers]

No.

Many studies have shown that immigration is a net economic benefit - immigrants pay more taxes than they use in services. So, as an example:

Immigrants come in, and use 10Bn of services. They pay 12Bn in tax. If the government uses 10Bn of that tax to provide those services then they make a 'profit' of 2Bn that can be used to provide services for others, pay down debt, lower taxes, whatever.

But what you actually have is:

Immigrants come in, and use 10Bn of services. They pay 12Bn in tax. The government uses 12Bn of that tax to provide tax breaks to billionaires and multinationals and then say that public services are a mess because of the 10Bn of services used by immigrants. Ordinarily this would be regarded as stupid, unless you have idiots willing to swallow their argument.

Hint: That last bit? You.

The low paid are getting poorer, the 4 million workers in poverty are getting poorer, to benefit them, immigration must make them wealthier. I am not blaming immigrants for making the working class poorer, so can you please say that immigration is making the wealthy wealthier. You can't say immigration is benefitting the country, because the low paid and poor are the majority. Yes, they are benefitting wealthy, but that is not the country.
If the rich take away the benefits of immigration and the poor don't benifit. It is the politicians fault, but it still doesn"t change that immigration is not benefithing the majority of the country.
When a person goes to use a public service that is used by more people and stretched, immigration is not benefithing the people, the health service is in crisis because there are more people and less money. The result is the low paid and poor lose. Net gain to the low paid and the poor = less than zero, they are now poorer. Immigration could be beneficial to all, but would need massive investment, that hasnt happened because the rich are pocketing the benefits. The poor only see lower wages and more strain on the services they use.

Immigration can benefit the whole country

Immigration without investment= more poverty for the working class and poor.

The goverment aren't building sufficient infrastructure and public services.

= immigration brings poverty for the working class and it is the fault of politicians not immigrants.

The result is the same, you can't say immigration is benefitting the country if the majority of people are poorer because the government is thieving the money and not investing. Say that immigration is benefitting the rich and many times the immigrants ( not always) but stop the drivel of immigration is benefitting the country. The majority of people get no benefit but are actually poorer.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

The low paid are getting poorer, the 4 million workers in poverty are getting poorer, to benefit them, immigration must make them wealthier. I am not blaming immigrants for making the working class poorer, so can you please say that immigration is making the wealthy wealthier. You can't say immigration is benefitting the country, because the low paid and poor are the majority. Yes, they are benefitting wealthy, but that is not the country.
If the rich take away the benefits of immigration and the poor don't benifit. It is the politicians fault, but it still doesn"t change that immigration is not benefithing the majority of the country.
When a person goes to use a public service that is used by more people and stretched, immigration is not benefithing the people, the health service is in crisis because there are more people and less money. The result is the low paid and poor lose. Net gain to the low paid and the poor = less than zero, they are now poorer. Immigration could be beneficial to all, but would need massive investment, that hasnt happened because the rich are pocketing the benefits. The poor only see lower wages and more strain on the services they use.

Immigration can benefit the whole country

Immigration without investment= more poverty for the working class and poor.

The goverment aren't building sufficient infrastructure and public services.

= immigration brings poverty for the working class and it is the fault of politicians not immigrants.

The result is the same, you can't say immigration is benefitting the country if the majority of people are poorer because the government is thieving the money and not investing. Say that immigration is benefitting the rich and many times the immigrants ( not always) but stop the drivel of immigration is benefitting the country. The majority of people get no benefit but are actually poorer.

Why single out immigrants?

Surely it's the population increase that's the problem, rather than the origin on the individuals, so why don't we stop everyone from having anymore children until investment in infrastructure has increased to a point that we're back on an even keel?