Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?

[gt_12345]

Mrr T said:

No they are not like the average brit. Even a young immigrant will on average contribute more. Partly because you do not have to pay for their education but also they will not contain those who choose not to work or are on disability which will be included in the UK average.

-Why won't they contain those who don't want to work?

-Why won't they be disabled?

[gt_12345]

Seasonal Hero said:

Define unskilled.

Would they obtain a work visa from similar countries like US, Australia etc.

[DeejRC]

Skeptisk said:

Have people forgotten what happens when you these fkwit, far right ideologues get to try to implement their “policies”? I’m looking at you Liz Truss and Brexit.

Liz Truss is far right????

That’s a new interpretation of politics. I think the learned gentleman may have missed his calling in shark fishing, cos one appears to be leaping across his bows…

[otolith]

gt_12345 said:

But we've said, in general, most people are net-takers. So their children are likely to be net takers too.

So the taxpayer funded the child's education (not their parents), funded their NHS AND probability suggests the child will be a net taker too.

So where's the benefit?

Seems like we're importing a lot of costs.

You still don't seem to understand that looking only at net contribution of personal income based taxes isn't an adequate way of understanding whether someone is a net contributor to society, even if you restrict that to economic contributions.

[Seasonal Hero]

gt_12345 said:

Would they obtain a work visa from similar countries like US, Australia etc.

That wasn’t the question I asked.

[Mrr T]

isaldiri said:

Mrr T said:

Under QE the BOE bought bonds from commercial banks at market value. It did so by creating money which it did not have to pay interest on. The government paid the interest on gilts which the BOE received. The deal was very profitable to the BOE!

Oh really..... The BoE pays base rate against receiving whatever coupon the bond the APF is holding. How or why else is the APF racking a (very) large loss now as compared to making a profit previously when the base rate was 0.10-0.25%?

Sorry I will admit I had forgotten some of the structure. APF and the BOE have separate accounts. APF buys bond by borrowing from the BOE. This facility is priced I think at base. The BOE creates the money it lends to APF on which it does not pay interest.

I believe AFP does not MTM. So with a positive yield curve and the QE maturities it made a "profit". Base has risen and the bonds purchased during Covid where at lower coupons so now it makes a loss. The BOE now makes more on its loan to APF.

[JagLover]

valiant said:

But in the system we have a vote for Reform is a wasted vote. They probably won't win any seats and and it will split the right wing vote. I've said it before that if the Tories and Reform combined their votes, they are not that far behind and it's certainly not insurmountable. If you sit on the right then the only way is to vote Tory and hope they mount a decent campaign. As it stands both parties will lose. Heavily.

For those still focused on the left-right axis then that argument doesn't hold much sway as the Tories are demonstrably not particularly right wing. Economically they are a party of high taxation and one that is also soft on law and order and other right wing concerns.

For those more focused on the new conflict between "globalist" and the rest then the Tories are simply the establishment party that wears the blue ties.

Neither group of voters are going to be that concerned about "wasted" votes that could otherwise keep them in power. Not to say that Reform is the answer of course and perhaps the harsh truth is that there isn't one.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

If the worst thing Reform stand for is challenging the idea that our country can only possibly function with a constant flow of immigration then they would get my vote.

This is a ludicrous proposition, which could only gain any currency within a totally deluded political establishment who can't see the wood for the trees.

[Mrr T]

gt_12345 said:

Mrr T said:

No they are not like the average brit. Even a young immigrant will on average contribute more. Partly because you do not have to pay for their education but also they will not contain those who choose not to work or are on disability which will be included in the UK average.

-Why won't they contain those who don't want to work?

-Why won't they be disabled?

- The data shows lower levels of unemployment for EU immigrants than from the UK. Post brexit the new work visas give no right to benefits.

- Besides the problems of immigrating. FOML did not include a freedom to claim benefits. Post brexit would not get a visa.

Any more useless questions?

[crankedup5]

Killboy said:

crankedup5 said:

That’s what I have said, whichever is voted for Tory / Labour will result in ———-
Over the decades I have voted Labour before moving to Lib Dem and last three elections Tory. None of these have delivered and indeed have left the Country worse off. Why keep voting for more of the same?

Its almost as if people should start holding their representatives to account.

Of course, it’s why it’s unlikely I will vote for the past political parties which I have previously voted for. That’s how democracy works, elected Government not delivering, past political parties not delivered whilst in Government and yet still pronounce the same old stale policies with minor tweaks attached. And yet people moan about non deliverance over decades but will either shrug the shoulders and not vote or even worse vote for the very policies that have previously failed.

[President Merkin]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

If the worst thing Reform stand for is challenging the idea that our country can only possibly function with a constant flow of immigration then they would get my vote.

This is a ludicrous proposition, which could only gain any currency within a totally deluded political establishment who can't see the wood for the trees.

Fascinating the Reform stans never seem to consider a lost decade in the economy & collapse in public services is a factor. I guess doing so would require some uncomfortable admissions.

[520TORQUES]

crankedup5 said:

Of course, it’s why it’s unlikely I will vote for the past political parties which I have previously voted for. That’s how democracy works, elected Government not delivering, past political parties not delivered whilst in Government and yet still pronounce the same old stale policies with minor tweaks attached. And yet people moan about non deliverance over decades but will either shrug the shoulders and not vote or even worse vote for the very policies that have previously failed.

France is currently governed by a party that didn't exist 8 years ago.

That's panned out well.

[Tankrizzo]

President Merkin said:

Fascinating the Reform stans never seem to consider a lost decade in the economy & collapse in public services is a factor. I guess doing so would require some uncomfortable admissions.

Thing is, there are even various MPs - like this throbber - who genuinely believe that the way to win the election is to focus on the small-boats issue. He honestly believes that if the Tories sort this out, everyone will magically forget everything else.

None so blind.

[Mrr T]

gt_12345 said:

Mrr T said:

gt_12345 said:

Mrr T said:

gt_12345 said:

Kermit, please answer this:

90% of immigrants, just like the normal British population, will earn below £40k and be a net-taker. If you have one child you need to earn £50k just to cover the education costs, let alone NHS, transport etc.

Net-taker means they cost more than they contribute.

1) How does admitting net-takers fund pensioners?

2) When the millions people you admit become pensioners, who's going to fund their pensions? Even more migrants?

Its not possible to answer your question because the figures you use are rubbish. I am sure you have used the figures before and I have explained why they are rubbish but you keep posting the same rubbish.

The 40k figure, I think it a bit less, is calculated by allocating all government costs on a per head basis. 29% of government is social benefits, pension, universal credit, and disability benefit, none of this will be paid to migrants. 20% is health so very little will be for migrants who are younger. 10% on education so none paid to migrants. 6% on defence, 10% on debt interest. So about 75% of the costs of government are nothing to do with the migrant.

It's likely a young fit migrant is contributing to the economy even on minimum wage.

As for education most migrants will contribute more over there life time because we did not have to pay for there education.

Not a single migrant has a child in education?

Young people don't use healthcare??

They are no different to a British person. Both consume Government expenditure.

They may have a child in education but you have not paid for there education and the child will grow up hopefully to contribute.

An immigrants may use healthcare but far less than an 80 year old brit.

No they are not like the average brit. Even a young immigrant will on average contribute more. Partly because you do not have to pay for their education but also they will not contain those who choose not to work or are on disability which will be included in the UK average.

The fact remain the £40k figure is rubbish.

But we've said, in general, most people are net-takers. So their children are likely to be net takers too.

So the taxpayer funded the child's education (not their parents), funded their NHS AND probability suggests the child will be a net taker too.

So where's the benefit?

Seems like we're importing a lot of costs.

You still seem to be struggling with some fairly simple concepts. Whether some one is a net taker or contributor depends on a number of factors. Of which the biggest is age. A child will be a taker up until 18. Most university students will be break even, except Doctors. Once in work most will contribute. Obviously there are exception. But for 50 odd years most will contribute. On retirement the pension starts as do many healthcare costs. My guess is most pensioners are takers. Even this will vary as heath pensioners will have much lower costs healthcare costs than others.

The whole benefit of immigration is you do not have to pay for education and they migrate with many years of contribution ahead.

[cheesejunkie]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

If the worst thing Reform stand for is challenging the idea that our country can only possibly function with a constant flow of immigration then they would get my vote.

This is a ludicrous proposition, which could only gain any currency within a totally deluded political establishment who can't see the wood for the trees.

What's your solution to an aging population?

Euthanasia would work but it won't be popular at the polling booth. So it's immigration. But if you want someone to promise you cake then knock yourself out voting for bakers.

[oyster]

cheesejunkie said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

If the worst thing Reform stand for is challenging the idea that our country can only possibly function with a constant flow of immigration then they would get my vote.

This is a ludicrous proposition, which could only gain any currency within a totally deluded political establishment who can't see the wood for the trees.

What's your solution to an aging population?

Euthanasia would work but it won't be popular at the polling booth. So it's immigration. But if you want someone to promise you cake then knock yourself out voting for bakers.

1. A 1% annual levy on all net worth above £10k.
2. Immediate raise of the pension age to 70 and increase by 1 year every 5 years for the next 15 years.
3. Raise the private pension age in line with the state pension age.
4. Remove the personal allowance withdrawal
5. Remove all pension annual and lifetime limits.

Result - a million+ extra workers available without any need for further immigration.

[Getragdogleg]

Mrr T said:

gt_12345 said:

Mrr T said:

No they are not like the average brit. Even a young immigrant will on average contribute more. Partly because you do not have to pay for their education but also they will not contain those who choose not to work or are on disability which will be included in the UK average.

-Why won't they contain those who don't want to work?

-Why won't they be disabled?

- The data shows lower levels of unemployment for EU immigrants than from the UK. Post brexit the new work visas give no right to benefits.

What about levels of unemployment for non EU immigrants ? The rest of the world is quite a lot bigger than the EU.

[hidetheelephants]

Tankrizzo said:

President Merkin said:

Fascinating the Reform stans never seem to consider a lost decade in the economy & collapse in public services is a factor. I guess doing so would require some uncomfortable admissions.

Thing is, there are even various MPs - like this throbber - who genuinely believe that the way to win the election is to focus on the small-boats issue. He honestly believes that if the Tories sort this out, everyone will magically forget everything else.

None so blind.

Jibbers crabst, that's a bad case of brain worms he's got.

[520TORQUES]

oyster said:

1. A 1% annual levy on all net worth above £10k.
2. Immediate raise of the pension age to 70 and increase by 1 year every 5 years for the next 15 years.
3. Raise the private pension age in line with the state pension age.
4. Remove the personal allowance withdrawal
5. Remove all pension annual and lifetime limits.

Result - a million+ extra workers available without any need for further immigration.

Result, an explosion of brain drain, sending money abroad and incapacity benefit claims.

[Seasonal Hero]

Tankrizzo said:

Thing is, there are even various MPs - like this throbber - who genuinely believe that the way to win the election is to focus on the small-boats issue. He honestly believes that if the Tories sort this out, everyone will magically forget everything else.

None so blind.

He is as thick as mince that one.