Jump to content

Universal credit for continous cruising licence


Horton

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Britain, being a member of the EU, must offer the same benefits to all arriving EU citizens as it does British citizens. There are several hundred million EU citizens. If the U.K. set the UBI at £5,000 p.a. this would roughly equate to the average weekly wage in over half of EU countries.

 

While not a legal abuse, the arriving flood following an introduction of UBI would represent a moral abuse, create an impossible strain on public services and ultimately, bankrupt the country.

You mean crops wouldn't be left to rot as they are this year? There might be people to staff care homes for salaries Britons won't tolerate? That sort of bankruptcy. The comparison with the wages in other countries is irrelevant - the cost of living would be comparatively less there too, so you have to balance it against the cost of living here. And the odd fact is that a considerable quantity of Europeans prefer to stay in their own countries rather than put up with the treatment they get from the population of this one. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You mean crops wouldn't be left to rot as they are this year? There might be people to staff care homes for salaries Britons won't tolerate? That sort of bankruptcy. The comparison with the wages in other countries is irrelevant - the cost of living would be comparatively less there too, so you have to balance it against the cost of living here. And the odd fact is that a considerable quantity of Europeans prefer to stay in their own countries rather than put up with the treatment they get from the population of this one. 

There's a specific thread for arguments about Brexit. My post was a factual one, in terms of finances. A major contributor to this thread is from America, he may not be aware of the ramifications of EU membership, differences in wealth between member states, and how different salary/ benefit levels can generate large movements of people between the various member states, as we have seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You mean crops wouldn't be left to rot as they are this year? There might be people to staff care homes for salaries Britons won't tolerate? That sort of bankruptcy. The comparison with the wages in other countries is irrelevant - the cost of living would be comparatively less there too, so you have to balance it against the cost of living here. And the odd fact is that a considerable quantity of Europeans prefer to stay in their own countries rather than put up with the treatment they get from the population of this one. 

Mechanisation is the way forward, some of the stuff people are doing is backbreaking. Machines do exist to do a lot of these jobs, maybe the Government is going to have to give grants to farms to buy them? Foe me this is a better idea than people traveling from other countries to do these menial jobs. When I was young I went potato and pea picking now machines do these far better than people can and with no bad backs afterwards!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Britain, being a member of the EU, must offer the same benefits to all arriving EU citizens as it does British citizens. There are several hundred million EU citizens. If the U.K. set the UBI at £5,000 p.a. this would roughly equate to the average weekly wage in over half of EU countries.

 

While not a legal abuse, the arriving flood following an introduction of UBI would represent a moral abuse, create an impossible strain on public services and ultimately, bankrupt the country.

the fundamental question is, why we need to pay every brit same amount of money?

There is no evidence of 50% admin cost in the UK, who what are we trying to fix exactly? Its like me losing my purse in a dark area and searching it near a street light simply because its easy to see things.

I dont have admin cost stats(which am sure is minuscule compare to its budget), but DWP lost £4.1 billion to fraud and error last year. Although it sounds like big money, its only 2.2% of its total budget.(£183.5 billion)

As a tax payer I wont be happy if you take money from me only to give back next year, its dumb. And a fundamentally inefficient system(as alleged) will probably eat some of that money in admin cost. More than half of british public are taxpayers.

 

Edited by restlessnomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

the fundamental question is, why we need to pay every brit same amount of money?

There is no evidence of 50% admin cost in the UK, who what are we trying to fix exactly? Its like me losing my purse in a dark area and searching it near a street light simply because its easy to see things.

I dont have admin cost stats(which am sure is minuscule compare to its budget), but DWP lost £4.1 billion to fraud and error last year. Although it sounds like big money, its only 2.2% of its total budget.(£183.5 billion)

As a tax payer I wont be happy if you take money from me only to give back next year, its dumb. And a fundamentally inefficient system(as alleged) will probably eat some of that money in admin cost. More than half of british public are taxpayers.

 

I'm not arguing for UBI, I'm arguing against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I'm not arguing for UBI, I'm arguing against it.

I know, was making a general point as well.

I mean even if UK stops immigration(post brexit), it wont be able to replace benefit system with UBI because it wont benefit the british public to begin with. (Unless I cant see something blatantly obvious).

Only few months ago, people were asking old citizens to be means tested to receive free tv license(less than £150 a year), I cant imagine everybody given £5000 simply because its easy to admin... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, restlessnomad said:

I know, was making a general point as well.

I mean even if UK stops immigration(post brexit), it wont be able to replace benefit system with UBI because it wont benefit the british public to begin with. (Unless I cant see something blatantly obvious).

Only few months ago, people were asking old citizens to be means tested to receive free tv license(less than £150 a year), I cant imagine everybody given £5000 simply because its easy to admin... lol

I would presume that if this did ever happen, the personal tax allowance would be adjusted to the same amount. So anyone earning more would pay tax which would reduce the amount of benefit accordingly. You would also be able to scrap tax credits as well as a lot of the benefit system and save a fortune in admin. If at the same time you imposed rent controls, simplified the income tax system to almost zero and slung it all onto indirect taxes, which can't be avoided, and you'd get rid of most of the civil service too... But maybe this should now be in the politics bit! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would presume that if this did ever happen, the personal tax allowance would be adjusted to the same amount. So anyone earning more would pay tax which would reduce the amount of benefit accordingly. You would also be able to scrap tax credits as well as a lot of the benefit system and save a fortune in admin. If at the same time you imposed rent controls, simplified the income tax system to almost zero and slung it all onto indirect taxes, which can't be avoided, and you'd get rid of most of the civil service too... But maybe this should now be in the politics bit! 

I very much doubt that we can bring enough money by taxing the rich, to give normal tax payer a tax cut(all this while protecting the help that the poor receive from tax payer's money).

And indirect tax is very unfair to poor people, we should never move to indirect tax wholesale.

Edited by restlessnomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I would presume that if this did ever happen, the personal tax allowance would be adjusted to the same amount. So anyone earning more would pay tax which would reduce the amount of benefit accordingly. You would also be able to scrap tax credits as well as a lot of the benefit system and save a fortune in admin. If at the same time you imposed rent controls, simplified the income tax system to almost zero and slung it all onto indirect taxes, which can't be avoided, and you'd get rid of most of the civil service too... But maybe this should now be in the politics bit! 

Some fair points but I doubt many of the existing benefits could be scrapped without a massive struggle. The very ethos of our benefits system is that of grouping people and prioritising one group above another. We can see this with the likes of working families and disabled people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Britain, being a member of the EU, must offer the same benefits to all arriving EU citizens as it does British citizens. There are several hundred million EU citizens. If the U.K. set the UBI at £5,000 p.a. this would roughly equate to the average weekly wage in over half of EU countries.

 

While not a legal abuse, the arriving flood following an introduction of UBI would represent a moral abuse, create an impossible strain on public services and ultimately, bankrupt the country.

Sounds like you needed longer to become less nationalistic before ready for EU. In the united states we assume some states are subsidized by others. Canada has a similar thing. It will always be true on earth. I think at some point we need to go global with our thinking. This sounds like an immigration arguement, which really cant be argued against. Its more of a social, racial choice than a fiscal one. 

 

 

10 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

There's a specific thread for arguments about Brexit. My post was a factual one, in terms of finances. A major contributor to this thread is from America, he may not be aware of the ramifications of EU membership, differences in wealth between member states, and how different salary/ benefit levels can generate large movements of people between the various member states, as we have seen. 

this happens all the time in america. i dont understand how you see it as a bad thing. and i appreciate the reasoning i feel as if its still on topic vaguely to welfare and continuous credits for cruising. Its interesting they were paying her credits ever. Fascinating. I imagine as tourism increases they will be pressured to make it harder to get into the cut. 

 

Edited by cksantos85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, peterboat said:

Mechanisation is the way forward, some of the stuff people are doing is backbreaking. Machines do exist to do a lot of these jobs, maybe the Government is going to have to give grants to farms to buy them? Foe me this is a better idea than people traveling from other countries to do these menial jobs. When I was young I went potato and pea picking now machines do these far better than people can and with no bad backs afterwards!!

100% agree here. But i also believe in freedom of movement across the earth. One world, one race, one chance to make it work. Anything less isent worth it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, restlessnomad said:

the fundamental question is, why we need to pay every brit same amount of money?

There is no evidence of 50% admin cost in the UK, who what are we trying to fix exactly? Its like me losing my purse in a dark area and searching it near a street light simply because its easy to see things.

I dont have admin cost stats(which am sure is minuscule compare to its budget), but DWP lost £4.1 billion to fraud and error last year. Although it sounds like big money, its only 2.2% of its total budget.(£183.5 billion)

As a tax payer I wont be happy if you take money from me only to give back next year, its dumb. And a fundamentally inefficient system(as alleged) will probably eat some of that money in admin cost. More than half of british public are taxpayers.

 

Would u be interested in lowering taxes and removing some of the benefits? OR are you comfortable with status quo. I found some great data if you are interested. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82160776.pdf Compares EU member states costs. Seems like the EU was too hasty and should have integrated slower. OR agreed to homogenize economies more by force. 

Edited by cksantos85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, cksantos85 said:

Would u be interested in lowering taxes and removing some of the benefits? OR are you comfortable with status quo. I found some great data if you are interested. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82160776.pdf Compares EU member states costs. Seems like the EU was too hasty and should have integrated slower. OR agreed to homogenize economies more by force. 

I would be interested in increase in taxes across the board(middle income, higher income and rich) so that the standard of public service (policing, transport, healthcare) improves (also maintaining the benefit to a level when people dont have to beg for food or go to foodbank or rely solely on charity). In UK (and I guess everywhere else), increasing the tax is a taboo subject for politicians because you will instantly lose vote.

No wonder they blame everything on EU, immigrant, inefficiency, the bankers(rich) etc. Some of it needs to be done (eg some level of immigration control, efficiency of delivery of services) but we all are living much longer, have generally higher income than other countries, we got to pay to maintain the standard of service that a citizen of first world country would expect.

You can tax rich only so much (before it stops increasing tax revenue), and corporation tax needs to be competitive to attract investment. So am not in favor of increasing them too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cksantos85 said:

100% agree here. But i also believe in freedom of movement across the earth. One world, one race, one chance to make it work. Anything less isent worth it. 

 

That's one opinion but if you averaged the capital wealth across the world with the number of people we'd each have a hut allocated to us. A rather smart hut to be fair, much nicer than billions of people live in, but there wouldn't be heating/ cooling on tap, independent transport or the time and equipment for leisure activities. Human nature is that we care for and protect ourselves and those closest to us first. So, family, then local community, nation, state, with the wider world being at the back of the queue.

 

I won't criticise the notion that the welfare of the entire world, one world one people, is of prime importance. It flies in the face of human nature though so I'd suggest this will always be a minority view.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

That's one opinion but if you averaged the capital wealth across the world with the number of people we'd each have a hut allocated to us. A rather smart hut to be fair, much nicer than billions of people live in, but there wouldn't be heating/ cooling on tap, independent transport or the time and equipment for leisure activities. Human nature is that we care for and protect ourselves and those closest to us first. So, family, then local community, nation, state, with the wider world being at the back of the queue.

 

I won't criticise the notion that the welfare of the entire world, one world one people, is of prime importance. It flies in the face of human nature though so I'd suggest this will always be a minority view.   

I would you say you are correct except that communications, artificial intelligence and other technology will close the gaps between the tribes to the point of near homogeneous within 100 years. No ones political party is ready for the technological singularity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cksantos85 said:

I would you say you are correct except that communications, artificial intelligence and other technology will close the gaps between the tribes to the point of near homogeneous within 100 years.

That of course assumes the human race will be around in 100 years.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cksantos85 said:

I would you say you are correct except that communications, artificial intelligence and other technology will close the gaps between the tribes to the point of near homogeneous within 100 years. No ones political party is ready for the technological singularity. 

 

It's as likely to exacerbate tribalism and exclusion, which is the current trend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jerra said:

That of course assumes the human race will be around in 100 years.

I dont think we will get past 2029 to be honest! It will wither be the gross pollution because very few give a toss, they would rather die than change their life, or if we are lucky it will be a quick end when the meteorite gets us!! 13 April 2029 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cksantos85 said:

I would you say you are correct except that communications, artificial intelligence and other technology will close the gaps between the tribes to the point of near homogeneous within 100 years. No ones political party is ready for the technological singularity. 

 

 

In this world, there is only one way this ends. Those that can afford the AI will have it to make the 'troublesome' human redundant. Technology comes along and does that. Though, there are good uses of technology, it isn't intrinsically bad. If the good of the human race and the planet were the prime goals that drive alot of advances, we'd not have the wreckage we have, from centuries of advances.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2019 at 09:28, Arthur Marshall said:

You mean crops wouldn't be left to rot as they are this year? There might be people to staff care homes for salaries Britons won't tolerate? That sort of bankruptcy. The comparison with the wages in other countries is irrelevant - the cost of living would be comparatively less there too, so you have to balance it against the cost of living here. And the odd fact is that a considerable quantity of Europeans prefer to stay in their own countries rather than put up with the treatment they get from the population of this one. 

Farming requires SEASONAL WORKERS .

 

seasonal workers are not immigrants.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

Farming requires SEASONAL WORKERS .

 

seasonal workers are not immigrants.

 

 

 

 

That's right, we need seasonal workers, I'm sure that will be part of the new migration policy following Brexit, if it happens. Seasonal workers who are unable to claim £8K a year benefits for their families back home, from a pot that they haven't contributed to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.