Ukip

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Indeed..will we for example have Brits having to move to elsewhere in the EU to find a home as working EU immigrants with families get priority on housing here compared to say an English childless couple?

[For Us All]

I have never suggested that all migrants are 'benefit tourists'.The effect of EU membership- and this kind of assessment- is to divide migrants into two job lots; EU and non-EU.If the conclusion to be reached from this research is that we accept all EU migrants,presumably it also points to the daft conclusion that we should exclude all non-EU migrants.The UKIP and increasingly the Conservative- point of view is that the UK should be able to pick and choose migrants from all over the world,to achieve the best possible results and reduce the total number.The other part of the UKIP argument,that large-scale immigration depresses wage levels- is not significantly affected.Overall these conclusions do not damage the UKIP position as much as most media outlets are suggesting.

[kevin_struggles]

You miss my point. I could argue your point but it would be a different discussion to what I meant. We will never have 100% employment, never have. And despite whatever they say, it doesn't benefit the powers that be to have it. So some will be unemployed because there aren't enough jobs.

 

I realise that and agree that businesses dont want 100% employment, to be fair thats unachievable anyway, but you appeared to be suggesting that it is right wing parties who are responsible for helping them to achieve that and, presumably, left wing ones that will sort it out. In my opinion, formed through my experience, big business have now got what they want because of a combination of short sighted idiotic unions and successive Labour governments damaging businesses by supporting expensive EU red tape which forced bsuinesses to seek cheaper countries in which to set up. In other words I blame labour.

 

The obvious point though is that to achieve a greater proportion of people in employment leading to a better deal for workers we need jobs and like it or not it is wealthy people and big businesses that create jobs not pipsqueak socialists with their high taxation and anti business policies.

 

I dont know why labour voters cant get it there arent many socialist businessmen who go through the difficult and costly exercise of setting up and driving forward a successful business then hand out the profits to the workers, in fact I cant think of any. The best thing to do is work hard and do a decent job so the businessmen (and accountants) see you as part of the reason for their success, an asset, because they will pay more to keep you. The worst thing to do is moan and whinge whilst doing a poor job and demanding more money for doing it, thats how we lost all our industry in the first place.

 

I will say it loud and clear for you, its big business that creates jobs, its socialist principles that costs jobs. If you want more choices in employment and lower taxes then you need to vote Tory but if you want less jobs but higher benefits then vote labour but lets be honest about who it is thats paying for those benefits through higher taxes, its the workers.

 

Now explain to me why any working man or woman would be better off under labour, and note I said working?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I have never suggested that all migrants are 'benefit tourists'.

 

Who said that you had made such a suggestion?

 

Not for one second do I belive we should accept all EU migrants. Immigration policy should be run for the benefit of this nation and for the people already here..ALL the people already here.

 

The article and the figures in it I find interesting purely becasue they contribute to the debate..we could of course be much better off with a more controlled/managed immigration policy than the EU 'open door' policy..I suspect we would be

[kevin_struggles]

How dare they come over here and put money into our economy!!! Common Sense 1 BNP Light/ the Farage show 0

 

You miss the point entirely, if there were only the immigrants putting money in and not those taking money out the country would be in an even better position. The problem isnt the immigrants who come here and work its the ones who come here with nothing to offer and simply claim benefits, that is who we want to keep out.

 

We can have one without having to accept the other.

[kevin_struggles]

Whatever you call it, it's part of the welfare state. Nearly half of it. Where as those that aren't working take up less than 5% ( or something close to that).

 

Its only part of the welfare state for those who havent paid in, for those who have its an entitlement that they have paid up front for.

 

labour are desperate for it to be seen as a benefit because they are the ones that stole all the money that was paid into it by Workers, another nail in the coffin for those who think labour is the party for workers, your pension isnt safe with them either

[kevin_struggles]

Farage reminds me of one of those salesmen. You know the type; bamboozles the easily led and gullible with numbers and figures and shallow promises, and then turns up on Rogue Traders a few weeks later.

 

Another pointless post, who do you vote for as an alternative and how are their policies going to make us all better off?

 

Is clegg a paragon of virtue, is Cameron? Is Millibland? Sorry dont know who the irrelevant greenie is this week.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Its only part of the welfare state for those who havent paid in, for those who have its an entitlement that they have paid up front for.

 

Well I get your point but not really..you don't pay in for yourself but into a general pot..after all lots of people pay far more in than they will ever receive in a state pension. Like all benefits some have paid in more than they recieve (some will never receive any other 'benefits' despite paying in), some less, some nothing..in that sense it is no different to any other state provided income.

 

labour are desperate for it to be seen as a benefit because they are the ones that stole all the money that was paid into it by Workers, another nail in the coffin for those who think labour is the party for workers, your pension isnt safe with them either

 

What Gordon Brown did to pension funds was outrageous and to sell it to the public as a tax on rich pension funds was even more outrageous, this was workers' money..scrapping the dividend tax credit hurt and will continue to hurt millions of 'ordinary' working people. It also paved the way for the closure of very successful defined benefit pension schemes and discouraged working people form putting money into their pension.

[kevin_struggles]

Well I get your point but not really..you don't pay in for yourself but into a general pot..after all lots of people pay far more in than they will ever receive in a state pension. Like all benefits some have paid in more than they recieve (some will never receive any other 'benefits' despite paying in), some less, some nothing..in that sense it is no different to any other state provided income.

 

 

 

What Gordon Brown did to pension funds was outrageous and to sell it to the public as a tax on rich pension funds was even more outrageous, this was workers' money..scrapping the dividend tax credit hurt and will continue to hurt millions of 'ordinary' working people. It also paved the way for the closure of very successful defined benefit pension schemes and discouraged working people form putting money into their pension.

 

Yes Benefits are available to those who pay in and those who dont, I agree with it in principle but I think it is an insult to liken pensioners who have worked all or most of their lives to other benefit claimants who have paid nowt in. Identifying pensioners as the largest group of claimants is misleading because if you are receiving a full pension then you would have paid in to it because as I understand it you cant claim a full one without doing so, otherwise you have to claim some other benefit in its place.

 

I may be wrong but thats what I thought was the case.

[Yukon]

You miss the point entirely, if there were only the immigrants putting money in and not those taking money out the country would be in an even better position. The problem isnt the immigrants who come here and work its the ones who come here with nothing to offer and simply claim benefits, that is who we want to keep out.

 

We can have one without having to accept the other.

 

Biut the current situation puts us in profit!

 

Some of the backtracking and re-positioning on this thread is a wonder to behold

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Yes Benefits are available to those who pay in and those who dont, I agree with it in principle but I think it is an insult to liken pensioners who have worked all or most of their lives to other benefit claimants who have paid nowt in.

 

Well I've not seen anyone do that

 

Identifying pensioners as the largest group of claimants is misleading

 

Claiming they were called claimants is also misleading..he stated "And the biggest chunk of benefits by a long way is pensions"

 

.

because if you are receiving a full pension then you would have paid in to it because as I understand it you cant claim a full one without

doing so, otherwise you have to claim some other benefit in its place.

 

I believe that to be the case but there are those getting some state pension who paid nothing in....that is topped up by other benefits.

[Andyregs]

I realise that and agree that businesses dont want 100% employment, to be fair thats unachievable anyway, but you appeared to be suggesting that it is right wing parties who are responsible for helping them to achieve that and, presumably, left wing ones that will sort it out. In my opinion, formed through my experience, big business have now got what they want because of a combination of short sighted idiotic unions and successive Labour governments damaging businesses by supporting expensive EU red tape which forced bsuinesses to seek cheaper countries in which to set up. In other words I blame labour.

 

The obvious point though is that to achieve a greater proportion of people in employment leading to a better deal for workers we need jobs and like it or not it is wealthy people and big businesses that create jobs not pipsqueak socialists with their high taxation and anti business policies.

 

I dont know why labour voters cant get it there arent many socialist businessmen who go through the difficult and costly exercise of setting up and driving forward a successful business then hand out the profits to the workers, in fact I cant think of any. The best thing to do is work hard and do a decent job so the businessmen (and accountants) see you as part of the reason for their success, an asset, because they will pay more to keep you. The worst thing to do is moan and whinge whilst doing a poor job and demanding more money for doing it, thats how we lost all our industry in the first place.

 

I will say it loud and clear for you, its big business that creates jobs, its socialist principles that costs jobs. If you want more choices in employment and lower taxes then you need to vote Tory but if you want less jobs but higher benefits then vote labour but lets be honest about who it is thats paying for those benefits through higher taxes, its the workers.

 

Now explain to me why any working man or woman would be better off under labour, and note I said working?

 

If you agree that we can't have 100% unemployment, and that businesses don't want 100% employment, then we need unemployment benefit surely? I'd argue that any party funded by big business would feel the same way about 100 % unemployment too.

You also seek to think those that want a fairer society, where the gap between the rich and poor isn't growing so rapidly, are lazy, whinge and do a poor job (I note you said 'working' and I'd hazard a guess it's attitude like that that make working people think they would be better off voting elsewhere).

In the early 80's The top CEOs got paid about 40 times the average workers pay. They now get over 500 times that.

You can now add the top 80 or so richest people's wealth together and they would own more than the poorest 3 billion. These choices and lower taxes don't seem to be doing it for them, perhaps they are all lazy.

I'm not saying I want everyone to be equal. I'm saying things could just be fairer. I can't see how free markets, low taxes, and scrapping the NHS will make things fairer.

[kevin_struggles]

If you agree that we can't have 100% unemployment, and that businesses don't want 100% employment, then we need unemployment benefit surely? I'd argue that any party funded by big business would feel the same way about 100 % unemployment too.

You also seek to think those that want a fairer society, where the gap between the rich and poor isn't growing so rapidly, are lazy, whinge and do a poor job (I note you said 'working' and I'd hazard a guess it's attitude like that that make working people think they would be better off voting elsewhere).

In the early 80's The top CEOs got paid about 40 times the average workers pay. They now get over 500 times that.

You can now add the top 80 or so richest people's wealth together and they would own more than the poorest 3 billion. These choices and lower taxes don't seem to be doing it for them, perhaps they are all lazy.

I'm not saying I want everyone to be equal. I'm saying things could just be fairer. I can't see how free markets, low taxes, and scrapping the NHS will make things fairer.

 

so you think the people in work who are clearly sick of picking up the tab for lazy good fro nothings who are capable of working but choose not to and immigrants who don't have a job? Well I would hazard a guess that you are wrong, hence the rise of UKIP.

 

100% employment isn't possible for many reasons but I notice you have no answer to the clear truth that only wealthy people and big business can generate jobs.

 

You just trot out the tired old jealous diatribe aimed at anyone who has earned themselves a decent life. How about putting some effort into getting everyone up to that level instead of chasing the wealth creators out, what are you going to have in their place more poor people, yes that should work

[kevin_struggles]

Well I've not seen anyone do that

 

 

 

Claiming they were called claimants is also misleading..he stated "And the biggest chunk of benefits by a long way is pensions"

 

.

 

 

I believe that to be the case but there are those getting some state pension who paid nothing in....that is topped up by other benefits.

 

In which case the figure he quoted needs to be adjusted to only include the amount actually being paid out to those who haven't paid in, but that wouldn't have the effect he was after would it.

 

Perhaps I am putting words in his mouth but to me he was clearly making the comparison deliberately to show that pensioners receive more benefits than the unemployed and to show pensioners in the same light. I disagree and will continue to do so.

[kevin_struggles]

Biut the current situation puts us in profit!

 

Some of the backtracking and re-positioning on this thread is a wonder to behold

 

Oh dear it looks like I'm going to have to speak more slowly so you can keep up.

 

The UKIP position on immigration is that they are in favour of having immigration as long as its controlled and restricted to those who benefit the country as a whole. Therefore, as a UKIP supporter, when I talk about immigration I am making a comparison between controlled immigration which I am in favour of and the current open door policy which I am against.

 

your stats show that immigration on the whole is good for the country but my answer is that if we had controlled immigration the stats would be even more in our favour. In other words

 

we.....would.....be....BETTER.....off....with......CONTROLLED.....immigration

 

If you were hoping the stats would prove that UKIP are wrong to say we don't want any immigrants here then I'm afraid you are on the wrong thread because that's BNP you are talking about not UKIP.

 

I'm not backtracking because you haven't made a point that makes me reconsider my position, which is the same as it was when we began.

 

Theres a very good reason why I hate stats and that is because of you choose the right stats and the right source you can prove anything.

 

I prefer common sense which is probably why you don't agree with me ;)