Immigration & Wage Deflation

[bottletop]

Have you never heard of having a bun in the oven Bluelady?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm always up for a quick roll with the ladies. Can't beat baps

[RichM]

Too pricey to have children. "Hard working families" have to pay too much tax, and hosusing is too expensive.

[88Crash]

The Greeks and Turks many of whom came in the 1970s do not punch thier weight in Tax terms. This is just a simple fact. If u claim otherwise u dont know them.

"You're right and peope think may think you're racist DON'T know them. They are good people, but to pay proper taxes is just NOT their way"

Go to Winchmore Hill and talk to a few. They are almost always self - employed and very wealthy yet dig deeper and you are confronted with endemic Tax evasion which pervades everything they do. OK there are plenty of Tax evaders amongst the established white population but it doesnt run to anything like the pc in some immigrant communities.

"All Brits that are self employed will put in a few 'extra' invoices to claim back some VAT maybe 10% and pay 90% - too many non-brits do it the other way round pay 10% scam 90%"

IMO thats why so many countries remain under - developed because tax evasion is a way of life. Pakkistanis are intelligent and very hard working (much harder that anglos) yet Pakistan is very under - developed. You have to be honest and ask why? Endemic Tax evasion and fraudulent Government can in the end be the only answer.

"Its not just the dark skinned countries i.e Spain and Italy would be similar, barring the EC extra billions they receive -

No 1 Sport = Football

No 2 Sport = Tax Evasion"

This is what the majority of Brits dont like. On the whole we are fairly law abiding and play by the rules. If u have had dealings with many foreign Police forces u will no what I mean by a basically corrupt attitude.

Please no anti - racist rants, you will only display your lack of inter - racial contact interaction.

"Too many people slag down the British police - there can only be one reason for this - they have never had to deal other foriegn police forces and that includes European cops - if you've had dealings with African police (like I have) you would NEVER complain about Brit police!"

We want people here but they must really contibute and not simply amass wealth by exploiting British liberal naevity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"It is OUR fault not theirs (PS. I'm a Brit) -

We are the wealthy POWERFUL country and when these new arrivals pitch up and are greeted by our naevity, you can't balme them for thinking we are stupid and taking the maximum advantage

In most parts of the world strength is respected - Sadly too much kindness, compasion, understanding or naevity is seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited"

[zzg113]

Too pricey to have children. "Hard working families" have to pay too much tax, and housing is too expensive.

And voting Tory will do nothing to change that.

[RichM]

And voting Tory will do nothing to change that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They say they want to cut taxes for the poorest. That's what they should do; revise the tax bands. Leaving the bands where they are for the last few years has been a good way of raising taxes. The poor pay way too much tax. Bugger credits and all that bullsh1t, just people keep what they earn.

There is plenty of government wastage, they've already p1ssed a shed load away on equity schemes for labour voters, I mean key workers.

[zzg113]

They say they want to cut taxes for the poorest.

Does abolishing CGT and IHT sound like cutting taxes for the poorest? Not in my book.

That's what they should do; revise the tax bands.

Yes, but WILL they do it? AFAIAA nowhere in the £4bn of tax cuts that the Tories have promised is there any mention of making sure that the poorest people don't pay any income or stealth taxes.

[RichM]

Does abolishing CGT and IHT sound like cutting taxes for the poorest? Not in my book.

Yes, but WILL they do it? AFAIAA nowhere in the £4bn of tax cuts that the Tories have promised is there any mention of making sure that the poorest people don't pay any income or stealth taxes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that is what it should do. They want to appear right-on at this stage.

I'm "right wing", zzg, I can't vote Lib Dem, and I can't Labour. I may have to vote tactically and go for Lib Dem, but that would make my skin crawl.

Having said all that, I'm up for a hung parliament, let Brown sort his mess out. Tories in for next 3 terms.

[zzg113]

I'm "right wing", zzg, I can't vote Lib Dem, and I can't Labour

So vote for UKIP or Veritas then. Anyone but the Tories.

Or any of the right-wing parties on this list:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/legal/...ties_list.shtml

[Bluelady]

The accommodation is in circulation, I suspect much of it is still used by deserving people and paid for by the council.

Rich M, this simply isn't true. The vast majority of council housing is now in the private sector, leaving only the dregs that nobody in their right mind would want to live in for those people needing social housing. Hence my comment about inner London former council properties now changing hands at £200-300k.

You talk about homes for key workers (Labour voters) being provided by the government but this is just a variation on Thatcher's right to buy policy. She gave council tenants huge discounts at taxpayers' expense to become home owners. The result is what you observe - pitiful amounts of poor quality social left for those people who need it. At least her other policy which was to give council tenants lump sums of up to £25k to buy on the open market left their former homes available for other low income tenants.

Local authorities weren't allowed to replace the housing that disappeared for ever out of the public sector, nor were they allowed to spend the capital gains. And now we have a government considering allowing housing association tenants to do the same thing which will compound the problem.

[Sold up and Renting Abroad]

The Greeks and Turks many of whom came in the 1970s do not punch thier weight in Tax terms. This is just a simple fact. If u claim otherwise u dont know them.

Go to Winchmore Hill and talk to a few. They are almost always self - employed and very wealthy yet dig deeper and you are confronted with endemic Tax evasion which pervades everything they do. OK there are plenty of Tax evaders amongst the established white population but it doesnt run to anything like the pc in some immigrant communities.

IMO thats why so many countries remain under - developed because tax evasion is a way of life. Pakkistanis are intelligent and very hard working (much harder that anglos) yet Pakistan is very under - developed. You have to be honest and ask why? Endemic Tax evasion and fraudulent Government can in the end be the only answer.

This is what the majority of Brits dont like. On the whole we are fairly law abiding and play by the rules. If u have had dealings with many foreign Police forces u will no what I mean by a basically corrupt attitude.

Please no anti - racist rants, you will only display your lack of inter - racial contact interaction.

We want people here but they must really contibute and not simply amass wealth by exploiting British liberal naevity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dogbox, you talk MASSIVE intelligence. No one can argue with you on this one.

[Justice]

No one commented about immigration depressing our wages so this seems to be an expectable fact in a supply demand related market. Does this explain why during this so called boom, wages have gone up so little.

Is the above a racist statement ?

It’s not just call center job going to India and the like. Looks like a double whammy to me

What will happen as we hit the coming recession ?

VacantPossession

Tribalism is alive and kicking in the UK

Yes you can tell that, Even Red Ken from London is now being called a racist and he’s the biggest left-wing parasite I’ve ever known. It’s all starting to look like a witch hunt to me, commies under the bed now.

[Spingirl]

Having said all that, I'm up for a hung parliament, let Brown sort his mess out. Tories in for next 3 terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Past taxation policies (From http://www.bized.ac.uk/dataserv/chron/kf90all.htm : see useful links page on HPC)

"Key facts on 1992

1992 - Still recession [...] Norman Lamont's second Budget - almost as exciting as the first. Modest cuts in direct taxation, almost matched by increases in indirect taxes. Overall impact of budget injected about £2bn into the economy.

Key facts on 1993

1993 - Recovery [...] Two Budgets in 1993 - one in March - Norman Lamont, the second in December - Kenneth Clarke. Norman put VAT on fuel and power at 8% initially in April 1994, and 17.5% from April '95. Tax increases were staggered -

1993/4 £6.7bn

1994/5 £10.3bn

All designed to reassure markets, but not make the recovery falter. Outlook for PSBR looked even worse in December 1993, so Kenneth topped even these tax increases making them the largest ever peacetime tax increases - equivalent to 7p on income tax. Much of increase was by reducing tax allowances and reducing the rate of 'mortgage tax relief'. Base rates were at 5.5% at the end of the year."

resumes lurking

[Wuluf]

Wuluf, do you read the Guardian?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read a mix.. Depends on my mood.. In general order of preference

1. The Independent

2. The Mirror

3. The Observer

4. The Times

5. Daily Mail/Daily Express

6. The Guardian

The guardian is pretty bad though..

Why do you ask?

[RichM]

I read a  mix.. Depends on my mood.. In general order of preference

1. The Independent

2. The Mirror

3. The Observer

4. The Times

5. Daily Mail/Daily Express

6. The Guardian

The guardian is pretty bad though..

Why do you ask?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Daily Mail? Eh? The Independent and the The Mirror, sure, but the DM/DE?

[RichM]

Past taxation policies (From http://www.bized.ac.uk/dataserv/chron/kf90all.htm : see useful links page on HPC)

"Key facts on 1992

1992 - Still recession [...] Norman Lamont's second Budget - almost as exciting as the first. Modest cuts in direct taxation, almost matched by increases in indirect taxes. Overall impact of budget injected about £2bn into the economy.

Key facts on 1993

1993 - Recovery [...] Two Budgets in 1993 - one in March - Norman Lamont, the second in December - Kenneth Clarke. Norman put VAT on fuel and power at 8% initially in April 1994, and 17.5% from April '95. Tax increases were staggered -

1993/4 £6.7bn

1994/5 £10.3bn

All designed to reassure markets, but not make the recovery falter. Outlook for PSBR looked even worse in December 1993, so Kenneth topped even these tax increases making them the largest ever peacetime tax increases - equivalent to 7p on income tax. Much of increase was by reducing tax allowances and reducing the rate of 'mortgage tax relief'. Base rates were at 5.5% at the end of the year."

resumes lurking

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ken was great, he calmed things down a lot, actually allowed the labour market reforms of the 80s to come through, inflation was calmed a lot.

I am "right-wing" both economically and socially, that doesn't mean I think that the Tories are the perfect party and that they haven't made mistakes. IMO the mistakes being made by the current administration are more significant than those of the last Tory government, and no future Labour or Lib-Dem gov is really up for tackling the mess TB, GB, et al. have created.

[zzg113]

I am "right-wing" both economically and socially

Which means what exactly?

[RichM]

Which means what exactly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Free enterprise, little government interference in markets, low taxation.

Individual responsibility, family values, freedom of speech, charitable insitutions.

I do think that the housing market should be grossly skewed towards favouring the OO, as they are the workers who make the economy "go" and they need somewhere to live, and as property can easily become a pyramid scheme otherwise.

[zzg113]

You say:

little government interference in markets

and then:

I do think that the housing market should be grossly skewed towards favouring the OO

You contradict yourself.

family values

Can you define what you mean by this phrase please. What values count as family values?

[RichM]

You say:

and then:

You contradict yourself.

Can you define what you mean by this phrase please. What values count as family values?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know that, but I wanted to make clear that I am not a legalist or a fool, I do think there are certain occasions where the market needs to be tweaked, shall we say, but that's always been the case.

For example, UK arms manufacturers have been subsidised by the UK government, or given priority over foreign firms. This is so that the UK can over the long-term can ensure its own defence. A similar argument is regularly w.r.t. agriculture, but I think that's rubbish, CAP is a total waste of money designed to appease backwards French farmers.

Family values - life-long and stable commitment in marriage as fundamental for the raising of children, mutual inter-generational support and accountability. These have been instrumental in any "success" I might enjoy, but the government seems to do little to propagate such values, for fear of being "judgmental"or prejudiced. I totally acknowledge that the last Tory administration let this one go as well. UK ends up with the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. I am more Widdecombe than Portillo, you might say...

[zzg113]

I do think there are certain occasions where the market needs to be tweaked,

You either believe in free markets or you don't. If you do believe in state intervention in markets (no matter how limited in scope) you cannot call yourself right-wing (economically).

UK arms manufacturers have been subsidised by the UK government, or given priority over foreign firms. This is so that the UK can over the long-term can ensure its own defence. A similar argument is regularly w.r.t. agriculture, but I think that's rubbish, CAP is a total waste of money designed to appease backwards French farmers

So why are subsidies OK when it comes to military security, but not food security?

[GCS15]

Could the mod's please lock this thread down? Notice the 10% warning? You were VERY quick with that one but let this thread drag? Come on Red Baron! You can do it. Or is it that you can shoot down one target at a time and lack the intestinal fortitude to take on a group?

[RichM]

You either believe in free markets or you don't. If you do believe in state intervention in markets (no matter how limited in scope) you cannot call yourself right-wing (economically).

So why are subsidies OK when it comes to military security, but not food security?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Markets have always been skewed to some extent. Tax on booze for example, it would be considered highly irresponsible to remove that levy. Town planning, that is a form of intervention, that even bears like us would agree is necessary to some extent. One thing about the right is that it is broadly pragmatic. If people want hard and fast, one-size fits all rules, then they can join the socialist workers.

The key phrase is "to some extent". I just think that OOs should be supported to buy as it is good for the nation in the long-term, e.g. retirement homes don't have to be provided for. Of course the market will eventually sort out the mess, but more people will be hurt that way. You're always going to have peaks and troughs, sometimes policy can be used to stop the "exuberance". I am hardly Keynesian.

I'm no expert, but I would guess that we would still have a large degee of food security, I wouldn't be surprised if CAP disappeared and markets were more open, more food would be made in the UK, not less. Farming skills could always be reintroduced, once you don't have an arms industry you're left with buying from the US, France, Russia, etc etc

[RichM]

Markets have always been skewed to some extent. Tax on booze for example, it would be considered highly irresponsible to remove that levy. Town planning, that is a form of intervention, that even bears like us would agree is necessary to some extent. One thing about the right is that it is broadly pragmatic. If people want hard and fast, one-size fits all rules, then they can join the socialist workers.

The key phrase is "to some extent". I just think that OOs should be supported to buy as it is good for the nation in the long-term, e.g. retirement homes don't have to be provided for. Of course the market will eventually sort out the mess, but more people will be hurt that way. You're always going to have peaks and troughs, sometimes policy can be used to stop the "exuberance". I am hardly Keynesian.

I'm no expert, but I would guess that we would still have a large degee of food security, I wouldn't be surprised if CAP disappeared and markets were more open, more food would be made in the UK, not less. Farming skills could always be reintroduced, once you don't have an arms industry you're left with buying from the US, France, Russia, etc etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We do keep coming back to property prices, honest, government polciy does have an impact...

[RichM]

The accommodation is in circulation, I suspect much of it is still used by deserving people and paid for by the council.

Rich M, this simply isn't true.  The vast majority of council housing is now in the private sector, leaving only the dregs that nobody in their right mind would want to live in for those people needing social housing.  Hence my comment about inner London former council properties now changing hands at £200-300k.

You talk about homes for key workers (Labour voters) being provided by the government but this is just a variation on Thatcher's right to buy policy.  She gave council tenants huge discounts at taxpayers' expense to become home owners.  The result is what you observe - pitiful amounts of poor quality social left for those people who need it.  At least her other policy which was to give council tenants lump sums of up to £25k to buy on the open market left their former homes available for other low income tenants.

Local authorities weren't allowed to replace the housing that disappeared for ever out of the public sector, nor were they allowed to spend the capital gains.  And now we have a government considering allowing housing association tenants to do the same thing which will compound the problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There still is social housing, not as much as in 1980, but there still is plenthy of ex-LA housing that is privately owned and the raid paid for by the council. Much social housing was in a poor state and not worth much on the open market. People got their properties at a reduced rate, but the reduction was relative to the amount of time they had spent there, and the rent they had already paid.

My main problem with this scheme is that it would be much more difficult now, I imagine, to knock down the concrete montrosity housing and build more sensible places for people to live.

If the numbers of people on low incomes, dependent on the state, had remained constant, then there would be no great fuss about the council homes sell off; after all, the people who bought their homes would be settled,and there would be some floating council stock left. One of the reasons I suspect that Thatcher didn't want more council housing built is that it would be crap.

As it is, we have seen more poverty imported, IMO, and a huge house price boom. This has made the housing situation harder for poorer folk, much more than selling off the council housing.

[Wuluf]

The Daily Mail? Eh? The Independent and the The Mirror, sure, but the DM/DE?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that why you asked? Ok got it

p.p.p.s I dont have to agree with something to read it.. There is something to be gained in examining an alternative view (or I wouldnt buy any of them.. likewise many wouldnt frequent this site).. I rencently went on keep-fit binge (2 years and counting [slowing down though]).. It helps to have something to read (during the 1-3 hours per day) on the elliptical treader.. It tends to be a mix of the above journals, car, top-gear, autocar, computer, language, financial books and watching DVDs. Killing two birds with one stone and all that..