OK, Lets discuss. What level of income do you put on it?
I’ve give one example. Median wage is 26K. Total tax 600 bn. Not enough to cover spending. There’s also a whopping other assumption that even if you match the tax take that its hunkey dorey, and its pensions. The pensions debts are increasing at 850 bn a year.
So at what level do you set the threshold for migrants, and how do you take the pensions into account?
“There’s no human rights issue is there in families being uprooted from one country to go an live in another.”
Yes, there is.
Neither is more valuable. Human beings are not commodities.
In terms of societal contribution one is more valuable, but by that logic we should be burning homeless people.
Besides, I’m not sure if you’re even following your own justification:
Me: All of your arguments hinge on the notion that migrants are of less value
You: Will you read what I’ve written and not put your own imagination on to it… Are both of [these] equal value to the UK?
That’s not my imagination, it’s an observation. And I would argue that even if we are applying financial values to migrants that they aren’t less valuable anyway (and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest otherwise), so either way I disagree.
Keep in mind that much of the potential wealth of a nation is held up in the banks of the rich anyway, so I’m not sure why migrants should be the target of this cost saving - you don’t appear to be talking about Arab princes or Russian billionaires; and I assume you’re under the misunderstanding that they bring more value to the country. If we merely ensured that the 1% paid their tax all of these supposed problems would disappear. I don’t care what someone’s nationality is; if they’re living in a country and contributing accordingly what difference does it make? At that point it just becomes needless tribalism.
And regarding your last paragraph you missed the point of that whole issue monumentally.
If a single migrant earning £30k is directly contributing £500,000 to the economy, then why should their employer top up their salary to ensure they’re ‘contributing enough’? Surely in that case the government should be giving that employee £495000 to ensure they’re not contributing too much? Fair’s fair, after all.
So migrants who up root their familes and bring them to the UK are human rights abusers.
Why should we allow in people who abuse their families?
Or is it that your uprooting = human rights abuse is false.
If a single migrant earning £30k is directly contributing £500,000 to the economy, then why should their employer top up their salary to ensure they’re ‘contributing enough’? Surely in that case the government should be giving that employee £495000 to ensure they’re not contributing too much? Fair’s fair, after all.
For the simple reason, it makes sure that they are.
If we follow your logic, if I make a profit for my company, can I be let off tax?
Treat people as individuals. Either they are good economically for the UK or they aren’t.
Why aren’t you telling us if Abu Hamzah, a migrant is good for the UK? It’s very telling that so far no one has answered that question.
It’s pretty obvious why. He was bad for the UK and the people within it purely on an economic point of view
Similarly, if we take your 30K worker generating 500,000 in profit for his fat cat bosses. Shouldn’t he have a share, or is it that you want migrants (and presumably others), to make all the profits, but get a paltry share?
VAT. How can you determine how much VAT someone pays dependent on their income?
Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF) published by the ONS is a good starter. It breaks down spending on the basis of income. Or page 13 of http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm119.pdf gives a decent graph of the breakdown
Not much is going on VAT related items, and then you have to multiply what is spent by 16.67% to get the amount going on VAT [1]
Still doesn’t make much of a difference as to which migrants are taking money from other people, and which migrants are giving more than they take.
[1] It’s not 20%, because the amount spent is post VAT. Spend 83.33 before VAT, and the total with VAT is 100 pounds
You don’t see the difference between choosing to migrate, and someone doing it on your behalf? Are you insane?
Because it doesn’t matter if they’re good or not - nobody is avoiding the question, it’s just utterly irrelevant. My neighbours are dickheads, but I dont think they should be deported.
No.
The effect is the same. Uprooting your family, taking them away from some friends. So either the effect is a human rights abuse or its not.
Doesn’t matter why, its the what.
I do admit that you were set up and you walked into the door just as I expected.
Since when was being a dick head a criminal offence?
Migrants are optional. The UK can choose which migrants it allows to live here. That’s the point. It cannot do the same with UK citizens. That’s the difference that you won’t acknowledge, hence you are confused.
We can and should deport criminals. If the country to which they are being deported is completely unsafe, then that’s a different matter. However, if we take Learco Chindamo as an example. he should be deported. Italy is not a place where his life would be in danger.
What utter nonsense.
So in your world illegal detainmt is the same as S&M? Context is, after all, apparently irrelevant.
Let’s agree to disagree and you can continue trolling elsewhere.
I don’t agree that we should, under all circumstances, deport criminals. On the contrary, I think it should be rare and under special circumstances. If they’re being tried and convicted under our legal process then they should be appropriately reformed within our process too. If they’re not being tried here then they’re not actually criminals yet and therefore you’re leaving a gaping hole for abuse.
Abu Hamza was a criminal tried and found guilty of a crime and subsequently jailed as a result. He wasn’t then deported, he was extradited, from what I remember. I don’t read the daily mail and so haven’t developed an obsession with the man, apologies if my information on the matter is sketchy - regardless straw men don’t change my worldview.
You clearly disagree. There’s not much more to say.
Why are you wittering on about VAT? DId I ask any question about VAT? I asked a question about how you regard the relative worths of immigrants and citizens, and how you justify treating one differently from the other. A question which you studiously avoid answering in any sensible fashion.
Ah ha! It’s a trap! Nathan Hornby, you’ve been trapped into… um, I’m not sure, exactly. Thinking that context is important?
Just wait, he’ll start monologuing in a minute.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
