immigration making the problem of the cost of living worse

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

A Labour government will clamp down on British businesses using cheap foreign labour, Ed Miliband will pledge today, as he gives a warning that the arrival of migrant workers from Romania and Bulgaria could make the cost of living crisis worse for Britons.

"Unless we act to change our economy, low-skill immigration risks making the problems of the cost of living crisis worse for those at the sharp end. It isn't prejudiced to believe that."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 39194.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Joey]

Read that earlier, an excellent piece by the future leader of this country.

[asl]

the future leader of this country.

[Shudder]

[ctfc-fan]

Ok. Stop the immigrants but really make those work shy buggers do something to earn their dole, whether it's working for the council cleaning litter or something.

[Joey]

Ok. Stop the immigrants but really make those work shy buggers do something to earn their dole, whether it's working for the council cleaning litter or something.

or y'know...offer them a job with a living wage?

When you can be in a job and still be in poverty, why would you work?

the future leader of this country.

[Shudder]

Only other realistic option is Cameron and his lot.

[Shudder]

[ctfc-fan]

Ok. Stop the immigrants but really make those work shy buggers do something to earn their dole, whether it's working for the council cleaning litter or something.

But the point is half of them don't want to work so the wage has no bearing.

It really annoys me when you see the claimants outside with their new clothes and smoking etc and they seem to be a lot better off than me even though I work.

or y'know...offer them a job with a living wage?

When you can be in a job and still be in poverty, why would you work?

the future leader of this country.

[Shudder]

Only other realistic option is Cameron and his lot.

[Shudder]

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Well it's not their fault - it's the fault of your employer paying you poverty wages and you should vote for whoever has the policy of a regulated living wage.

People in work and receiving benefits far outweigh the number of people out of work receiving benefits. Why? Because so many salaries are so low the state has to give people subsidies for people to be able to afford a roof over their head and to feed their children. A massive redistribution of tax payers money into the hands of large private businesses - my tax contributions are paying the landlords of Tesco employees, meanwhile shareholders of Tesco make a killing out of paying such poverty wages. Unfair on me the taxpayer in my opinion.

Rents are so high and ever increasing and wages are so low and ever stagnating that the housing benefit bill keep ballooning, despite the spare room subsidy reduction ('bedroom tax'). The better option is to build more houses (Labour policy) and mandate a living wage. Then the number of people needing benefit will be reduced. Ultimately, it's better to reduce the number of people on benefits and still give enough to people who really need it. Across the board cuts like the bedroom tax have big impacts on people with serious illness and disabilities who have no other choice due to needing the extra rooms for carers and equipment - it would be better to ensure they have enough to live a human life and ensure not many other people benefits to reduce the overall bill.

[Malabus]

Ship em all out...set Britannia free of these bloody shackles. We thirst for our identity.

[C.V]

How can it be right for instance a Polish family or any other imigrant family comes in with three children and claims child benefit.They haven't put anything in so its bound to impact on us tax paying workers.Schools are struggling with language and our own kids are being held back as there isnt enough cover to educate the kids.

[Malabus]

How can it be right for instance a Polish family or any other imigrant family comes in with three children and claims child benefit.They haven't put anything in so its bound to impact on us tax paying workers.Schools are struggling with language and our own kids are being held back as there isnt enough cover to educate the kids.

NHS; GP's, Roads, Housing, Police, public transport all struggling......overcrowding makes a very unhappy society. But we still have free open borders that Brussels force/demand. We need to get out of the EU asap.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Immigration has a net benefit to the treasury - more is paid in taxes than is taken in services and benefits.

Ironic that the given example is Polish people - as the below suggests, they are big on private healthcare so do not burden the NHS and instead contribute to the treasury further.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... th-tourism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... e-williams" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ctfc-fan]

Well it's not their fault - it's the fault of your employer paying you poverty wages and you should vote for whoever has the policy of a regulated living wage.

People in work and receiving benefits far outweigh the number of people out of work receiving benefits. Why? Because so many salaries are so low the state has to give people subsidies for people to be able to afford a roof over their head and to feed their children. A massive redistribution of tax payers money into the hands of large private businesses - my tax contributions are paying the landlords of Tesco employees, meanwhile shareholders of Tesco make a killing out of paying such poverty wages. Unfair on me the taxpayer in my opinion.

Rents are so high and ever increasing and wages are so low and ever stagnating that the housing benefit bill keep ballooning, despite the spare room subsidy reduction ('bedroom tax'). The better option is to build more houses (Labour policy) and mandate a living wage. Then the number of people needing benefit will be reduced. Ultimately, it's better to reduce the number of people on benefits and still give enough to people who really need it. Across the board cuts like the bedroom tax have big impacts on people with serious illness and disabilities who have no other choice due to needing the extra rooms for carers and equipment - it would be better to ensure they have enough to live a human life and ensure not many other people benefits to reduce the overall bill.

I am the employer!

I employ 10 people but because I chose to work hard, I don't get given freebies like a house etc. I can't claim child nursery vouchers.

But basically I'm worse off because I choose to work and have to pay tax.

[Joey]

Well it's not their fault - it's the fault of your employer paying you poverty wages and you should vote for whoever has the policy of a regulated living wage.

People in work and receiving benefits far outweigh the number of people out of work receiving benefits. Why? Because so many salaries are so low the state has to give people subsidies for people to be able to afford a roof over their head and to feed their children. A massive redistribution of tax payers money into the hands of large private businesses - my tax contributions are paying the landlords of Tesco employees, meanwhile shareholders of Tesco make a killing out of paying such poverty wages. Unfair on me the taxpayer in my opinion.

Rents are so high and ever increasing and wages are so low and ever stagnating that the housing benefit bill keep ballooning, despite the spare room subsidy reduction ('bedroom tax'). The better option is to build more houses (Labour policy) and mandate a living wage. Then the number of people needing benefit will be reduced. Ultimately, it's better to reduce the number of people on benefits and still give enough to people who really need it. Across the board cuts like the bedroom tax have big impacts on people with serious illness and disabilities who have no other choice due to needing the extra rooms for carers and equipment - it would be better to ensure they have enough to live a human life and ensure not many other people benefits to reduce the overall bill.

I am the employer!

I employ 10 people but because I chose to work hard, I don't get given freebies like a house etc. I can't claim child nursery vouchers.

But basically I'm worse off because I choose to work and have to pay tax.

We now live in a society where being in a job simply does remove a person from poverty or is always a viable solution. It does not make sense to go to work and then spend most of your wages on child care for example, if we make it so that working improves the social mobility of a person and helps them further themselves then I expect you'll find a lot of people will be more enthusiastic about working.

I too work hard, yet I don't complain that there are people who get food bank vouchers or housing benefit because I don't need it. The social security system is designed to help out the vulnerable in society and I accept that my taxes will help out these people because it's about living in a civilised society. If 1 in 10 people in the system don't need assistance, I'd rather that 1 out of those 10 people can play the system rather than 9 people slip further into poverty.

It's not perfect, there are plenty more things that need doing to lower the social security bill but without it we would see poverty levels like in America.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Well it's not their fault - it's the fault of your employer paying you poverty wages and you should vote for whoever has the policy of a regulated living wage.

People in work and receiving benefits far outweigh the number of people out of work receiving benefits. Why? Because so many salaries are so low the state has to give people subsidies for people to be able to afford a roof over their head and to feed their children. A massive redistribution of tax payers money into the hands of large private businesses - my tax contributions are paying the landlords of Tesco employees, meanwhile shareholders of Tesco make a killing out of paying such poverty wages. Unfair on me the taxpayer in my opinion.

Rents are so high and ever increasing and wages are so low and ever stagnating that the housing benefit bill keep ballooning, despite the spare room subsidy reduction ('bedroom tax'). The better option is to build more houses (Labour policy) and mandate a living wage. Then the number of people needing benefit will be reduced. Ultimately, it's better to reduce the number of people on benefits and still give enough to people who really need it. Across the board cuts like the bedroom tax have big impacts on people with serious illness and disabilities who have no other choice due to needing the extra rooms for carers and equipment - it would be better to ensure they have enough to live a human life and ensure not many other people benefits to reduce the overall bill.

I am the employer!

I employ 10 people but because I chose to work hard, I don't get given freebies like a house etc. I can't claim child nursery vouchers.

But basically I'm worse off because I choose to work and have to pay tax.

No one gets a free house (usually a damp cold over crowded one) and child benefit is available for people earning 45k....and childcare is subsidised as it's so expensive. What relatives pay for nursery costs vastly more than my mortgage does for example.

I might add that if your business makes you worse off than someone surviving on £57 a week then maybe you should call it a day.

Or come the election vote for something that will help your business - reducing people's spending power and incentivising banks to loan to first time buyers rather than small businesses won't do you much good.

[ctfc-fan]

Well it's not their fault - it's the fault of your employer paying you poverty wages and you should vote for whoever has the policy of a regulated living wage.

People in work and receiving benefits far outweigh the number of people out of work receiving benefits. Why? Because so many salaries are so low the state has to give people subsidies for people to be able to afford a roof over their head and to feed their children. A massive redistribution of tax payers money into the hands of large private businesses - my tax contributions are paying the landlords of Tesco employees, meanwhile shareholders of Tesco make a killing out of paying such poverty wages. Unfair on me the taxpayer in my opinion.

Rents are so high and ever increasing and wages are so low and ever stagnating that the housing benefit bill keep ballooning, despite the spare room subsidy reduction ('bedroom tax'). The better option is to build more houses (Labour policy) and mandate a living wage. Then the number of people needing benefit will be reduced. Ultimately, it's better to reduce the number of people on benefits and still give enough to people who really need it. Across the board cuts like the bedroom tax have big impacts on people with serious illness and disabilities who have no other choice due to needing the extra rooms for carers and equipment - it would be better to ensure they have enough to live a human life and ensure not many other people benefits to reduce the overall bill.

I am the employer!

I employ 10 people but because I chose to work hard, I don't get given freebies like a house etc. I can't claim child nursery vouchers.

But basically I'm worse off because I choose to work and have to pay tax.

No one gets a free house (usually a damp cold over crowded one) and child benefit is available for people earning 45k....and childcare is subsidised as it's so expensive. What relatives pay for nursery costs vastly more than my mortgage does for example.

I might add that if your business makes you worse off than someone surviving on £57 a week then maybe you should call it a day.

Or come the election vote for something that will help your business - reducing people's spending power and incentivising banks to loan to first time buyers rather than small businesses won't do you much good.

Childcare isn't subsidised until my kids are older. At the moment the full burden is on me to pay.

I don't think you fully understand. If someone was getting £57 per week then they'd get a lot of other benefits which I'm not entitled too because I work.

[Joey]

Childcare isn't subsidised until my kids are older. At the moment the full burden is on me to pay.

I don't think you fully understand. If someone was getting £57 per week then they'd get a lot of other benefits which I'm not entitled too because I work.

Most working age benefit goes to people in work.

The people you talk about, those who have slipped through the net and act as parasites are a tiny amount in real terms. As is being proved tonight on C4with "Benefits Street", the media and the current coalition will focus on these people to turn the classes against each other. The demonisation of the social security benefits system we see mostly in the media is absolutely horrific because a few people ruin it.

If people were angry at the low paying bosses, private land lords and the rich who dodge their taxes then the world might be a little bit of a better place.

P.S I'm pretty sure you get child care assistance when your child turns 2, does kinda suck there is no assistance post-maternity leave until the age of 2 though.

[ctfc-fan]

Childcare isn't subsidised until my kids are older. At the moment the full burden is on me to pay.

I don't think you fully understand. If someone was getting £57 per week then they'd get a lot of other benefits which I'm not entitled too because I work.

Most working age benefit goes to people in work.

The people you talk about, those who have slipped through the net and act as parasites are a tiny amount in real terms. As is being proved tonight on C4with "Benefits Street", the media and the current coalition will focus on these people to turn the classes against each other. The demonisation of the social security benefits system we see mostly in the media is absolutely horrific because a few people ruin it.

If people were angry at the low paying bosses, private land lords and the rich who dodge their taxes then the world might be a little bit of a better place.

P.S I'm pretty sure you get child care assistance when your child turns 2, does kinda suck there is no assistance post-maternity leave until the age of 2 though.

It's up to the provider I believe. But ours starts at 3 and haven't seen too many offering it for 2 year olds.

[Si Robin]

Well it's not their fault - it's the fault of your employer paying you poverty wages and you should vote for whoever has the policy of a regulated living wage.

People in work and receiving benefits far outweigh the number of people out of work receiving benefits. Why? Because so many salaries are so low the state has to give people subsidies for people to be able to afford a roof over their head and to feed their children. A massive redistribution of tax payers money into the hands of large private businesses - my tax contributions are paying the landlords of Tesco employees, meanwhile shareholders of Tesco make a killing out of paying such poverty wages. Unfair on me the taxpayer in my opinion.

Rents are so high and ever increasing and wages are so low and ever stagnating that the housing benefit bill keep ballooning, despite the spare room subsidy reduction ('bedroom tax'). The better option is to build more houses (Labour policy) and mandate a living wage. Then the number of people needing benefit will be reduced. Ultimately, it's better to reduce the number of people on benefits and still give enough to people who really need it. Across the board cuts like the bedroom tax have big impacts on people with serious illness and disabilities who have no other choice due to needing the extra rooms for carers and equipment - it would be better to ensure they have enough to live a human life and ensure not many other people benefits to reduce the overall bill.

I am the employer!

I employ 10 people but because I chose to work hard, I don't get given freebies like a house etc. I can't claim child nursery vouchers.

But basically I'm worse off because I choose to work and have to pay tax.

No one gets a free house (usually a damp cold over crowded one) and child benefit is available for people earning 45k....and childcare is subsidised as it's so expensive. What relatives pay for nursery costs vastly more than my mortgage does for example.

I might add that if your business makes you worse off than someone surviving on £57 a week then maybe you should call it a day.

Or come the election vote for something that will help your business - reducing people's spending power and incentivising banks to loan to first time buyers rather than small businesses won't do you much good.

Not strictly true. My lazy, can't be bothered to work brother and his fat, lazy, can't even be bothered to leave their house missus have just been given a brand new 3 bedroom house on Gotherington Lane. I can assure you they have paid nothing towards it and are completely playing the system.

Shockingly, if either went to work, it would cripple them.

[Shade]

Disgrace that those houses were even built, let alone being given away like that.

[Ralph]

Shade.. I know 2 couples that got free houses as well. One in Gloucester and one in Stonehouse.. its playing the system. I'd discuss it more but theres a poster in this thread that don't think mods should have an opinion on things such as this

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Shade.. I know 2 couples that got free houses as well. One in Gloucester and one in Stonehouse.. its playing the system. I'd discuss it more but theres a poster in this thread that don't think mods should have an opinion on things such as this

I am sure such a poster would always welcome factual input and real-life examples Ralph - and would hope moderators led by example by posting such to make sure threads avoid idle generalisation.

I fully support means-tested housing benefit/social housing - something not actually in place yet and I was shocked to read today that they are going to introduce it for people earning £60,000-£70,000 who have a council house. That is unacceptable in my book.

[ctfc-fan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-25640310" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, let's just support them and their 10 kids.... Why not?! Why should we make him work? Take it easy mate.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-25640310

Yeah, let's just support them and their 10 kids.... Why not?! Why should we make him work? Take it easy mate.

That is beyond the pale - I fully agree with you.

That is an exceptional case though and my gripes are against those who will now use that example to paint everyone with the same brush when that is an incorrect and offensive generalisation.

[ctfc-fan]

What planet are you living on?? That's not an exception although I know not everyone is out to scam the system.

What about that lady in Tewkesbury?

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

What planet are you living on?? That's not an exception although I know not everyone is out to scam the system.

What about that lady in Tewkesbury?

By exception I meant a small minority. The two examples you give form 0.000039% of all housing benefit claimants.

In August 2013 there were 5.04 million working-age housing benefit recipients* in the UK, so even if you were able to give another 50,398 such examples we'll still be talking about 1% of all claimants, which is still a very small non-representative percentage which in the scheme of things would be regarded as an exception by statisticians/economists.

*source: https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... -summaries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ralph]

Shade.. I know 2 couples that got free houses as well. One in Gloucester and one in Stonehouse.. its playing the system. I'd discuss it more but theres a poster in this thread that don't think mods should have an opinion on things such as this

I am sure such a poster would always welcome factual input and real-life examples Ralph -

Probably not because you never have so far

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Shade.. I know 2 couples that got free houses as well. One in Gloucester and one in Stonehouse.. its playing the system. I'd discuss it more but theres a poster in this thread that don't think mods should have an opinion on things such as this

I am sure such a poster would always welcome factual input and real-life examples Ralph -

Probably not because you never have so far

Sensationalised Mail/other paper articles highlighting an exceptional case or providing nothing but opinion or deliberately misconstrued facts, or even lies, do not count as factual input or real-life examples, Ralph.

If you want I shall stop posting opinion on these topics and reply only with accurate statistics, data trends and consensus opinions from leading economists - the result in terms of being different to what you post will be the same.

Not rocket science.

[Shade]

Shade.. I know 2 couples that got free houses as well. One in Gloucester and one in Stonehouse.. its playing the system. I'd discuss it more but theres a poster in this thread that don't think mods should have an opinion on things such as this

I'm trying to avoid this thread as it winds me up ridiculously. Not doing very well. I work in Sales & Lettings and I see so many examples of it, it boggles the mind. I go to houses, and I know it's almost a cliche these days, but there are just perfectly fit but idle bastards with their girlfriend and 3 kids, bred for the benefit money they bring, laying around watching Jeremy Kyle or This Morning on their brand new 47" LED TV and they're on full benefits. And then they get given a new house somewhere because the one they've been living in is no longer big enough for them as the girlfriend is preggers again. And before anybody says they don't have kids just for the benefit money, I have had TWO women admit exactly that in the past. They should be offered steralisation, not a new house.

I'm only part joking with the steralisation...

[Nesty]

is this a joke??

EU citizens working in the UK are currently able to claim child benefit, even if their children live abroad.

[Joey]

0.7% of social security benefit payments are lost to fraud.
Only 190 out of 1.35 million families who claim have 10 or more children.
More SSB payments go unclaimed than SSB payments lost to fraud.
Immigrants are less likely to claim social security than those who were born here.

[Shade]

0.7% of social security benefit payments are lost to fraud.
Only 190 out of 1.35 million families who claim have 10 or more children.
More SSB payments go unclaimed than SSB payments lost to fraud.
Immigrants are less likely to claim social security than those who were born here.

What constitutes fraud? I don't think being lazy and sitting on your arse, making a token effort to get a job, does. It's just playing the system.
I don't see what relevance families with 10 or more children has. 4 or more and claiming is too many.
Who cares? NONE should be lost to fraud anyway, no matter how much is saved form decent people not claiming because they don't have to.
That doesn't matter, if they've put in to the system then it isn't a problem if they take out.

[Joey]

0.7% of social security benefit payments are lost to fraud.
Only 190 out of 1.35 million families who claim have 10 or more children.
More SSB payments go unclaimed than SSB payments lost to fraud.
Immigrants are less likely to claim social security than those who were born here.

What constitutes fraud? I don't think being lazy and sitting on your arse, making a token effort to get a job, does. It's just playing the system.
I don't see what relevance families with 10 or more children has. 4 or more and claiming is too many.
Who cares? NONE should be lost to fraud anyway, no matter how much is saved form decent people not claiming because they don't have to.
That doesn't matter, if they've put in to the system then it isn't a problem if they take out.

There are 2 ways to commit benefit fraud:
intentionally not reporting a change in your circumstances
being dishonest in order to get benefit

I agree, none should be lost to fraud. Yet for the amount it is, people seem much more concerned with it as opposed to other issues which cost the tax payer much more. For example, everyone's favourite Gary Barlow was found to be involved in a scheme aimed at letting him pay the least tax as possible, he's still loved and has an OBE. Where's the Channel 4 show slotted in at prime time trying to find out he did it and going into his house? Yes, benefit fraud is a problem. Yes, people claiming social security when they don't need it is a problem. However they are not this biggest threat to the finances of this country.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

0.7% of social security benefit payments are lost to fraud.
Only 190 out of 1.35 million families who claim have 10 or more children.
More SSB payments go unclaimed than SSB payments lost to fraud.
Immigrants are less likely to claim social security than those who were born here.

What constitutes fraud? I don't think being lazy and sitting on your arse, making a token effort to get a job, does. It's just playing the system.
I don't see what relevance families with 10 or more children has. 4 or more and claiming is too many.
Who cares? NONE should be lost to fraud anyway, no matter how much is saved form decent people not claiming because they don't have to.
That doesn't matter, if they've put in to the system then it isn't a problem if they take out.

There are 2 ways to commit benefit fraud:
intentionally not reporting a change in your circumstances
being dishonest in order to get benefit

I agree, none should be lost to fraud. Yet for the amount it is, people seem much more concerned with it as opposed to other issues which cost the tax payer much more. For example, everyone's favourite Gary Barlow was found to be involved in a scheme aimed at letting him pay the least tax as possible, he's still loved and has an OBE. Where's the Channel 4 show slotted in at prime time trying to find out he did it and going into his house? Yes, benefit fraud is a problem. Yes, people claiming social security when they don't need it is a problem. However they are not this biggest threat to the finances of this country.

Beauty of capitalism - sell enough people shares in your company, then you could get away with murdering your own staff each week without paying them to achieve massive profit and no-one would mind because pension funds and trust funds make people money for so many people you face no opposition.

Indeed, whilst benefit fraud is small change, the fact that people don't get rich off it means it is socially unacceptable. You can threaten the economies of the world by fixing Libor rates and gas wholesale prices, and you can show utter disdain for customers by feeding them 'meat' which has unknown contents - but important people get rich off it so it's ok. That's why the government does it's best to make you think everyone is a skiver or fraudster - majority of people in this country are puppets of a minority elite who go to bed laughing that people blame ever increasing gas/electricity and travel costs on benefit claimants and immigrants.