The Labour Government

[I'm With Stupid]

Maybe? I don't know. But what does that mean exactly? I mean if someone cannot support themselves or becomes ill, we don't just let them die by the roadside.

There are certain benefits that are not included basically. So...

• universal credit
• housing benefit
• working/child tax credit
• child benefit
• income-related jobseeker's allowance
• a few other minor things (e.g. winter fuel payments)

They are typically entitled to:

• the NHS (and refugees don't have to pay the surcharge that other immigrants do)
• schooling for their kids
• contribution-based benefits (e.g. those linked to NI payments)
• a few other things that might be categorised as not public funds depending on the local authority (some housing things)

But as for your main question, I'd say having to wait 20 years instead of 5 is a massive disincentive, and highlights what the government sees the asylum system as - a temporary safe haven while your home country is dangerous. The present system is effectively a system where if you're granted asylum in the UK, you are basically allowed to stay forever, because you get an automatic 5 years, and after 5 years of continuous residency, you are allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In theory, if the country is now significantly safer, then the ILR application can be denied, but it's unclear how often they are denied (but 91% have settled status in 10 years). And let's face it, how often are these things cleared up in 5 years?

But it also creates a shitload more work for a department that already has a huge backlog. They'll presumably be counting on a reduced number of applicants balancing it out, because at the moment, they're creating a system where cases need to be reviewed twice as often, which by my maths, would double the workload per applicant.

 

[WRicko]

So in order to get settled status early you need to have no debt. Does that include mortgage and student loans ?

Seems odd

Debt doesn’t necessarily mean your a burden on the state

 

[WRicko]

It's cost at least a portion of the amount we are giving to the French and whatever the border force costs to bring them ashore. So there is a cost before they land. The UK born 18 year old costs may or may not have been met by the parent's tax contributions but the important point you make there is 'UK born' as a nation its a given that we support our own before work and after they retire which I am more than happy to do. I and the majority of the British public have no wish to fund illegal immigration.

Except refugees basically have to be illegal according according to UK law. Note they are never arrested because it’s not actually illegal and because they are illegal and how we set up the system they have to cost us a bit of money for a brief period. Perhaps we should change the system ?

 

[Chippy_boy]

There are certain benefits that are not included basically. So...

• universal credit
• housing benefit
• working/child tax credit
• child benefit
• income-related jobseeker's allowance
• a few other minor things (e.g. winter fuel payments)

They are typically entitled to:

• the NHS (and refugees don't have to pay the surcharge that other immigrants do)
• schooling for their kids
• contribution-based benefits (e.g. those linked to NI payments)
• a few other things that might be categorised as not public funds depending on the local authority (some housing things)

But as for your main question, I'd say having to wait 20 years instead of 5 is a massive disincentive, and highlights what the government sees the asylum system as - a temporary safe haven while your home country is dangerous. The present system is effectively a system where if you're granted asylum in the UK, you are basically allowed to stay forever, because you get an automatic 5 years, and after 5 years of continuous residency, you are allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In theory, if the country is now significantly safer, then the ILR application can be denied, but it's unclear how often they are denied (but 91% have settled status in 10 years). And let's face it, how often are these things cleared up in 5 years?

But it also creates a shitload more work for a department that already has a huge backlog. They'll presumably be counting on a reduced number of applicants balancing it out, because at the moment, they're creating a system where cases need to be reviewed twice as often, which by my maths, would double the workload per applicant.

Thanks. Fingers crossed it has some impact because we cannot carry on inexorably as we are.

 

[ballbag]

Crazy how Labour, who haven't been great, are still absolutely miles better than anything else on offer.

 

[blueish swede]

In the parallel universe you seem to inhabit, then perhaps all of the above is true. The fact the country is in the state it's in, rather neatly demonstrates that we don't actually live in your parallel universe. We are not the Netherlands, or the Nordics and we will never be like them. I constantly hear you lot saying "why can't we be like e.g. Sweden or Finland or Norway". Well no shit Sherlock, because 1,000 years of history has made us not like the Swedes, Fins or Norwegians. That's the reality you lot don't seem to be able to suck up. We are intrinsically less socialist, less left wing, more like the US than we are like many in the EU.

Thanks for the advice, but I was only asking. The thing is, i've worked my arse off all my life doing some really shitty jobs, highly stressed. Not being funny but most people I think would not have been able to put up with it and would have quit citing "stress". Now I have got myself to a position where I can just about afford a relatively comfortable retirement. Not excessive, just enough. If returns on investments take a tumble, it will be squeaky bum. If not, I shoudl just about be OK. I have no "spare" money.

So funnily enough I am rather paranoid about some **** in No. 11 deciding well done, you've amassed a few bob so we will take it off you to pay for the lazy twats who DID quit their jobs citing stress.

I don't think it's a left-right thing. It's more about being willing to act in unpopular ways for the long term benefit of the country, which successive British Governments have been unwilling to do. And you can´t really blame them, look at the WFA palaver. Although not brilliantly managed, the reasoning was correct, and people who can afford to pay for themselves, should.

Also other countrie have "agreed" long term strategies that all parties abide by. In Sweden, for example, Government borrowing is restricted by praxis so the country has to live within it's means i.e. a chancellor can't spend more than they take in revenue. There are exceptions, large scale building projects, for example, that are payed off over 75-100 years. You can spend in the boom years, but not in a recession. It's understood by everyone.

The same with benefits, although nobody starves, a life on benefits isn't an option here, it is a subsistence level of aid. On the other hand, childbenefits, parental leave, disability alowance and care are at a much higher level.

Now I have got myself to a position where I can just about afford a relatively comfortable retirement...
As of 1st January Sweden will abolish the retirement age and instead each individual will get advice on when it is "financially sustainable" for them to retire. It's a huge change, but it's clear the current system will be unsustainable in the future, so something has to be done.

 

[metalblue]

So in order to get settled status early you need to have no debt. Does that include mortgage and student loans ?

Seems odd

Debt doesn’t necessarily mean your a burden on the state

That does seem weird. Where did you see that?

 

[Vic]

Corrected

Nowt to do with Trump. This is English racists with little or no belief in the message of Christianity.

 

[Vic]

Then we should stop having kids then and just import people over the age of 18, that’ll sort everything.

We are stopping having kids.

 

[blueparrot]

We are stopping having kids.

Been thinking about my immediate family my wife has 2 siblings and 2 for myself all with partners so 12 adults and between those 12 there are 5 children aged 18 -29 who so far have 0 children. Dont know what that proves but currently in 3 generations its a drop from 12 to 0

 

[Vic]

They’re up 4.7% not down.

Farmers Guardian two weeks ago:


In other, more sombre news, milk price cuts continue as First Milk, Freshways, Muller and Arla announce further reductions. Arla has confirmed its milk price will drop by 2.63ppl from November 1, while farmers supplying Muller who meet the conditions for Muller Advantage will receive a milk price of 40ppl from December 1, a reduction of 1.5ppl. Freshways announced a December cut of 2ppl, and First Milk confirmed its milk price for a standard manufacturing litre will reduce from December 1 by 6ppl.

 

[meltonblue]

It's cost at least a portion of the amount we are giving to the French and whatever the border force costs to bring them ashore. So there is a cost before they land. The UK born 18 year old costs may or may not have been met by the parent's tax contributions but the important point you make there is 'UK born' as a nation its a given that we support our own before work and after they retire which I am more than happy to do. I and the majority of the British public have no wish to fund illegal immigration.

The last polls I saw, although pretty level, showed the majority still thought that people seeking asylum via small boats should still have their claims processed.

 

[Vic]

I was alerted to this by the excellent BBC radio programme More or Less a couple of weeks ago, which had a piece suggesting that with a wide definition of "benefits" ("free" stuff - NHS Orange Juice! - child benefit, pensions) most UK citizens get more in benefits than they pay in taxes. (Only people on well higher than average income are net contributors to the system.)

This below from 2019, just when Brexit meant we would lose a lot of EU migrants. Feel free to offer alternative stats (or even alternative facts).
"Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found. And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero."

EU migrant workers contribute £2,300 more per year to UK than average British citizen, study reveals

'If the UK’s new relationship with Europe involves reduced migration, this analysis suggests the tax burden on others will have to rise'

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

I was alerted to this by the excellent BBC radio programme More or Less a couple of weeks ago, which had a piece suggesting that with a wide definition of "benefits" ("free" stuff - NHS Orange Juice! - child benefit, pensions) most UK citizens get more in benefits than they pay in taxes. (Only people on well higher than average income are net contributors to the system.)

This below from 2019, just when Brexit meant we would lose a lot of EU migrants. Feel free to offer alternative stats (or even alternative facts).
"Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found. And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero."

EU migrant workers contribute £2,300 more per year to UK than average British citizen, study reveals

'If the UK’s new relationship with Europe involves reduced migration, this analysis suggests the tax burden on others will have to rise'

www.independent.co.uk

Interesting post. As legal migrants I'd expect the vast majority come to the UK to work, usually in higher earning brackets due to the immigration rules. They will probably also be fairly young, and childless. This is likely to impact in terms of their use of public services. The analysis also seems to assume they will stay in the UK forever. Unsure whether that's a reasonable assumption, although it may be.