|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 15:50:50 GMT
I think that a lot of people are missing the clear and obvious fact that this is not an unchangeable, objective rule of nature. If the government enacts this and it proves too strict, they're not going to stand idly by and watch care homes etc implode because of lack of labour- they can loosen the laws and let more people in to fit the requirements. It would be idiocy to think otherwise. The point is that it is now within own power to decide for ourselves what needs tinkering with and how best to do that, and there is no acceptable argument as to why this is a bad thing. Aside from this, it will drive up wages at the bottom of the spectrum in a narural, organic way, not the artificial inflation of the moronic minimum wage concept. Very true, you'd hope, but that isn't the only issue. As someone said on twitter, say you're a French doctor who wants to move out of France, would you go somewhere where you are treated the same as the natives (anywhere in the EU), or would you go somewhere where your partner wouldn't be allowed in because they work part-time while looking after your kids, so only have 30 points, and you can only get in after you've received a job offer?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 15:53:07 GMT
I wont though I and my missus worked our bollocks/lady equivalent off to provide for our family. As you do and many others so I wont need a hand out I pay for insurance etc to account for the unexpected and to provide for those I care about. I saved every penny I could I drive a 16yr old car I live in the same house it's called planning and self respect. I've never asked or expected anyone to provide for me, never been out of work regardless of what it was. And if needed I'd do any job i can get to pay my way. I live within my means never been materialistic. I am lucky but the harder you work the luckier you get as the saying goes. Fair play to you and I doff my cap. But I think that phrase I've emboldened is not true really. Have you ever had to have three jobs on the go just to pay the mortgage, no car no holidays, no savings ? or have mummy and daddy cosseted you throughout your life maybe that is why you seem to find the basic's of financial reality difficult to comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 19, 2020 15:59:19 GMT
Fair play to you and I doff my cap. But I think that phrase I've emboldened is not true really. Have you ever had to have three jobs on the go just to pay the mortgage, no car no holidays, no savings ? or have mummy and daddy cosseted you throughout your life maybe that is why you seem to find the basic's of financial reality difficult to comprehend. I find it hard to believe there are 3 employers that would give you a job. So for that reason I’m calling your bluff...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 15:59:20 GMT
Hence Universal Basic Income. Was that not tried before ?, if so and it was a success then why is it not in place in the majority of countries. Tried a bit in Scandinavia and is being slowly rolled out more. The US tried it under Reagan and stopped because the divorce rate increased, women were getting enough money to start businesses and realised they didn't actually like their husbands It's originally a right wing idea I think, small government and all that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 16:00:15 GMT
Fair play to you and I doff my cap. But I think that phrase I've emboldened is not true really. Have you ever had to have three jobs on the go just to pay the mortgage, no car no holidays, no savings ? or have mummy and daddy cosseted you throughout your life maybe that is why you seem to find the basic's of financial reality difficult to comprehend. I think you should perhaps consider that you don't know as much about people as you think you do before you write things like that on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 16:02:45 GMT
Have you ever had to have three jobs on the go just to pay the mortgage, no car no holidays, no savings ? or have mummy and daddy cosseted you throughout your life maybe that is why you seem to find the basic's of financial reality difficult to comprehend. I think you should perhaps consider that you don't know as much about people as you think you do before you write things like that on the internet. Maybe
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 16:05:08 GMT
I think you should perhaps consider that you don't know as much about people as you think you do before you write things like that on the internet. Maybe Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 16:06:57 GMT
Was that not tried before ?, if so and it was a success then why is it not in place in the majority of countries. Tried a bit in Scandinavia and is being slowly rolled out more. The US tried it under Reagan and stopped because the divorce rate increased, women were getting enough money to start businesses and realised they didn't actually like their husbands It's originally a right wing idea I think, small government and all that. Taken from Marxist world on the subject of BBI not my work: "Many Marxists are attracted by the idea; some kind of realisation of Marx’s ideas of a communist, unalienated society" it was trailed in Finland in 2017 taking time to roll out
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 16:08:23 GMT
Maybe Definitely. No I said maybe as in maybe not definitely which is why I put maybe as I don't know you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 16:15:00 GMT
Tried a bit in Scandinavia and is being slowly rolled out more. The US tried it under Reagan and stopped because the divorce rate increased, women were getting enough money to start businesses and realised they didn't actually like their husbands It's originally a right wing idea I think, small government and all that. Taken from Marxist world on the subject of BBI not my work: "Many Marxists are attracted by the idea; some kind of realisation of Marx’s ideas of a communist, unalienated society" it was trailed in Finland in 2017 taking time to roll out
Depends, it's not really Marxist because Marx's ideas of the eventual communist society wouldn't have utilised money really. It's mostly a relic libertarian idea to stop big government welfare and ensure everyone gets a 'leg up' to be a good capitalist. However, it's a damn sight better than having the DWP spending money to try and prove that you shouldn't get any benefits. It's been given a lift recently by the left, in a very good way. A lot cheaper and does a lot more for people who need the money! Everyone gets it, so no need to spend on checking for fraud. Everyone gets enough to stay alive and have the basics. Gives people time and freedom to search for jobs they actually want to do/are good at. Removes the stress of being on welfare and the depression/health issues that can cause, and ensures people don't get stuck in a spiral that the current system imposes.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 19, 2020 16:17:03 GMT
England expects! As the foreigners they despise return to their native lands it is the patriotic duty of all retired people who voted Tory/Brexit to pick cabbages in Lincolnshire and turnips in Cambridgeshire. Dig for victory! As Priti Patel said, economic inactivity is laziness! man alive, it's been set out and announced that there will be changes made if required to fill gaps and meet business needs, but let's all run around waving our hands in the air screeching doom and gloom. Does your business depend on low wage workers at all?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 16:41:07 GMT
Taken from Marxist world on the subject of BBI not my work: "Many Marxists are attracted by the idea; some kind of realisation of Marx’s ideas of a communist, unalienated society" it was trailed in Finland in 2017 taking time to roll out
Depends, it's not really Marxist because Marx's ideas of the eventual communist society wouldn't have utilised money really. It's mostly a relic libertarian idea to stop big government welfare and ensure everyone gets a 'leg up' to be a good capitalist. However, it's a damn sight better than having the DWP spending money to try and prove that you shouldn't get any benefits. It's been given a lift recently by the left, in a very good way. A lot cheaper and does a lot more for people who need the money! Everyone gets it, so no need to spend on checking for fraud. Everyone gets enough to stay alive and have the basics. Gives people time and freedom to search for jobs they actually want to do/are good at. Removes the stress of being on welfare and the depression/health issues that can cause, and ensures people don't get stuck in a spiral that the current system imposes. Sounds almost to good to be true, but then again it is a right wing ideology so you never know.
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Feb 19, 2020 16:47:09 GMT
I wont though I and my missus worked our bollocks/lady equivalent off to provide for our family. As you do and many others so I wont need a hand out I pay for insurance etc to account for the unexpected and to provide for those I care about. I saved every penny I could I drive a 16yr old car I live in the same house it's called planning and self respect. I've never asked or expected anyone to provide for me, never been out of work regardless of what it was. And if needed I'd do any job i can get to pay my way. I live within my means never been materialistic. I am lucky but the harder you work the luckier you get as the saying goes. Fair play to you and I doff my cap. But I think that phrase I've emboldened is not true really. I know it's not but it's TRUE to a degree you need some kind of long term plan. It's boring and all that but it does help to pay into a pension etc. I know plenty of people driving 30k cars living in big expensive houses and it's fine nice people and friends but that's not me, they still work I don't. I prefer to have the freedom to do what I want when I want. I'm not wealthy and have a modest income but it's how you spend it that counts not how much, unless you are wealthy of course. Work to live not the other way round mate and soon as your able get your feet up lifes too short.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 17:06:36 GMT
Fair play to you and I doff my cap. But I think that phrase I've emboldened is not true really. I know it's not but it's TRUE to a degree you need some kind of long term plan. It's boring and all that but it does help to pay into a pension etc. I know plenty of people driving 30k cars living in big expensive houses and it's fine nice people and friends but that's not me, they still work I don't. I prefer to have the freedom to do what I want when I want. I'm not wealthy and have a modest income but it's how you spend it that counts not how much, unless you are wealthy of course. Work to live not the other way round mate and soon as your able get your feet up lifes too short. Good for you mucker, I have had loads of jobs including part time jobs to supplement my income when the kids were younger, I have had flash cars and expensive holidays etc., after the civil service I now work part time to pay for the hols. and treating the grand kids, most of my money is tied up in bricks and mortar, the flash motors have gone the kids now have new cars they have been looked after, I have never been out of work ! as you say you make your own luck I could have sat back and existed on benefits fuck that. There is work a plenty if you want it, problem is plenty expect it to come to them and when it doesn't moan like fuck about how unlucky they are.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Feb 19, 2020 17:09:18 GMT
The whole reason we have ended up like this, having to introduce what some perceive as draconian, is because successive governments have dodged the issue year on year until it has built up to the position now.
Depending on your viewpoint it can be argued why they did this...it could be to keep big business happy with cheap labour, a well intended aim to keep up with demand, getting variable skill levels or even wanting to engineer social change into the traditional UK culture.......but now it is being changed and people are bleating about it. Look at some of the owners or companies bleating loudly.....it will cost them money now their source of low expectation labour could be drying up. It’s ironic that many of these business/capitalist sort are trying to cite the impact on care or service industries when they really don’t give a shit about the service or care offered as long as they make maximum profit.
As has been mentioned, I hope the Govt will relax any conditions temporarily to avoid critical impact, but longer term this is the way ahead to make sure that UK workers aren’t undercut by cheap labour or closed shops and in turn offers greater control on who comes into the UK. Why shouldn’t we be able to pick and choose who comes in and for what jobs that need filling....after all, there doesn’t appear to be a lack of numbers wanting to come here, so let’s be selective and the ones not needed, well try somewhere else.
It might be worth asking what were traditional Labour heartland voters their views on it...I have a sneaking suspicion they may well up for these visa requirements.....but then, they aren’t considered important anymore are they?
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Feb 19, 2020 17:26:34 GMT
It's clear that the cost of social care is going to increase significantly if even the current inadequate (in some areas)levels of provision are maintained. Who should pay - the user, including those who were appalled at May's 2017 election proposal , or the state through increased taxes?
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Feb 19, 2020 17:37:52 GMT
It's clear that the cost of social care is going to increase significantly if even the current inadequate (in some areas)levels of provision are maintained. Who should pay - the user, including those who were appalled at May's 2017 election proposal , or the state through increased taxes? The million dollar question, imho the state should cover the "cost" of care but to do that sustainably it has to tighten benefits across the board. I'm not against increase in taxes but it must be with reform. As a country we are no different to individuals we have to live within our means. We have to tighten use of the NHS for british citizens and those with insurance or reciprocal agreements to cover costs. We have to tighten the benefit system or at some point it will implode. So reform tighten and tax in that order for me. It's not bad to ask people to pay if they are not eligible.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Feb 19, 2020 18:12:33 GMT
It's clear that the cost of social care is going to increase significantly if even the current inadequate (in some areas)levels of provision are maintained. Who should pay - the user, including those who were appalled at May's 2017 election proposal , or the state through increased taxes? The million dollar question, imho the state should cover the "cost" of care but to do that sustainably it has to tighten benefits across the board. I'm not against increase in taxes but it must be with reform. As a country we are no different to individuals we have to live within our means. We have to tighten use of the NHS for british citizens and those with insurance or reciprocal agreements to cover costs. We have to tighten the benefit system or at some point it will implode. So reform tighten and tax in that order for me. It's not bad to ask people to pay if they are not eligible. 'Reform' is only likely to recover a fraction of the costs incurred by these new criteria unless it includes dramatic measures such as increasing the state pension age significantly . 'Tightening' even less . So it seems taxes will need to increase to cover it, or, given the Tories are pushing tax cuts then increased borrowing will have to apply .
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Feb 19, 2020 18:14:33 GMT
The million dollar question, imho the state should cover the "cost" of care but to do that sustainably it has to tighten benefits across the board. I'm not against increase in taxes but it must be with reform. As a country we are no different to individuals we have to live within our means. We have to tighten use of the NHS for british citizens and those with insurance or reciprocal agreements to cover costs. We have to tighten the benefit system or at some point it will implode. So reform tighten and tax in that order for me. It's not bad to ask people to pay if they are not eligible. 'Reform' is only likely to recover a fraction of the costs incurred by these new criteria unless it includes dramatic measures such as increasing the state pension age significantly . 'Tightening' even less . So it seems taxes will need to increase to cover it, or, given the Tories are pushing tax cuts then increased borrowing will have to apply .
Depends how much reform and how much they tighten but it all helps.
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Feb 19, 2020 18:36:42 GMT
I'm anti-Brexit but don't understand the furore around them wanting potential immigrants to speak a good level of English.
Surely that's the minimum requirement?
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Feb 19, 2020 18:48:35 GMT
Some of these threads are brilliant 😆
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Feb 19, 2020 18:49:19 GMT
I'm anti-Brexit but don't understand the furore around them wanting potential immigrants to speak a good level of English. Surely that's the minimum requirement? I take it they already insist on a criminal records check?
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Feb 19, 2020 18:52:30 GMT
It's clear that the cost of social care is going to increase significantly if even the current inadequate (in some areas)levels of provision are maintained. Who should pay - the user, including those who were appalled at May's 2017 election proposal , or the state through increased taxes? That’s a whole new thread mate. Although, impossible to solve.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 19, 2020 19:01:30 GMT
I'm anti-Brexit but don't understand the furore around them wanting potential immigrants to speak a good level of English. Surely that's the minimum requirement? I take it they already insist on a criminal records check?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 19:32:46 GMT
I'm anti-Brexit but don't understand the furore around them wanting potential immigrants to speak a good level of English. Surely that's the minimum requirement? Be careful the resident commies will have you down as a racesst, seriously I applied for a job in Spain a job I have the skill sets to do with ease, only problem was the racist bastards insisted I speak fluent Spanish, how dare they FFS it is my right to go to their country and demand I get my own way
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 19:36:18 GMT
I'm anti-Brexit but don't understand the furore around them wanting potential immigrants to speak a good level of English. Surely that's the minimum requirement? I take it they already insist on a criminal records check? But that would be against their human rights, they have the right to come here with no checks at all, they have the rights to benefits, housing, free education, free healthcare and loads of other free services, no wonder they all want to come here, only problem is these things are not free we have to pay for them.
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Feb 19, 2020 19:38:40 GMT
I take it they already insist on a criminal records check? But that would be against their human rights, they have the right to come here with no checks at all, they have the rights to benefits, housing, free education, free healthcare and loads of other free services, no wonder they all want to come here, only problem is these things are not free we have to pay for them. Are you a xr activist?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Feb 19, 2020 19:43:48 GMT
I'm anti-Brexit but don't understand the furore around them wanting potential immigrants to speak a good level of English. Surely that's the minimum requirement? Be careful the resident commies will have you down as a racesst, seriously I applied for a job in Spain a job I have the skill sets to do with ease, only problem was the racist bastards insisted I speak fluent Spanish, how dare they FFS it is my right to go to their country and demand I get my own way Aren't we merely on catch up with Wales on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 19, 2020 19:50:31 GMT
England expects! As the foreigners they despise return to their native lands it is the patriotic duty of all retired people who voted Tory/Brexit to pick cabbages in Lincolnshire and turnips in Cambridgeshire. Dig for victory! As Priti Patel said, economic inactivity is laziness! man alive, it's been set out and announced that there will be changes made if required to fill gaps and meet business needs, but let's all run around waving our hands in the air screeching doom and gloom. Does your business depend on low wage workers at all? He disappears when you ask him questions about the "business" he says he runs
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 19, 2020 21:07:15 GMT
As we struggle to fill low paid essential jobs with unskilled migrants it should in theory reverse the wage freeze that employers used by having an endless supply of low paid unskilled wages.
Won’t happen overnight but wages should start to rise
|
|