If thats the case, i come from india.... not really .Dont agree with that at all. Money we have payed out of wages ect for taxes over the years could be much better spent.
1K.Orger
Illegal immigrants
I hear the Government are planning to pay illegal immigrants and assylum seekers £3000 each to leave Britain and return to their own country....plus they are going to support them for a further 12 months once they arrive there!! I am interested to know what everyone thinks of this idea?
Don't wrestle with pigs, you just get all dirty and the pig enjoys it.
1K.Orger
If thats the case, i come from india.... not really .Dont agree with that at all. Money we have payed out of wages ect for taxes over the years could be much better spent.
computer says no ........
.Orger
Originally Posted by connieb19
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
It's an excellent source for news. Much better than Joan down at the Fag shed.
1K.Orger
Not nearly as much fun though Donnie...Thanks anyway!!
Don't wrestle with pigs, you just get all dirty and the pig enjoys it.
.Orger
And what country do you come from because your grammer and english spelling is not quite up to the Bilatee standard.
.Orger
Illegal Immigrants
WOW!!! If the USA decided to do that with illegals that came up across the Mexican/USA border, we would go broke in a hurry.
Does anyone believe this will happeN?
1K.Orger
Well there was a discussion on the radio about it and seemingly it costs in excess of £11000 to forcibly return them to their own country so it will be a saving for the government to only have to fork out £3000 to each of them!!
Don't wrestle with pigs, you just get all dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Banned
Scenario no.1: Man leaves poor third world village in a spurious attmept to claim 'asylum' in Britain. He has heard of the gravy train and, he wants to improve his lot. He gets unlucky, and is one of the few failed 'asylum seekers'to be sent back. He arrives back in the village glum, but with story to tell.
Scenario no.2: Same man, same village. He arrives back home with what amounts to six years wages in his pocket (£3,000) How many others will follow his example?
This is not the governments money. It is yours and mine, or the companies we work for. This is yet another step down the road of insanity that this pathetic adminstration is leading us all.
1K.Orger
Not only that us taxpayers are giong to pay to support him and his family for a further 12 months after he goes home...crazy or what?????
Don't wrestle with pigs, you just get all dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Suspended
send em home with nothin,or even better have trained marksmen positioned just outside the tunnel entrance.Not only that us taxpayers are giong to pay to support him and his family for a further 12 months after he goes home...crazy or what?????
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle338225.ece
Relax, the scheme will only be open to refugees who arrived in Britain before the end of last month.
It is and it isn’t.
Think about it for a minute. Education, infrastructure, health care, defence, your pension – how much do you think what you personally pay in tax would buy you if you had to buy it for yourself?
We collect our money together in a central pot because it has more buying power that way. The trouble is that you and I are extremely unlikely to agree on just how we want it to be spent, so we need to come up with a way for some kind of decision to be made as to what is and what isn’t a good way to spend it. Sure, we could each trot down to the local school to vote every time an invoice comes in to Whitehall but that’s not very practical (or cost effective). Far better that we get together every once in a while (say around four or five years) and pick a group of us who we trust to make decisions for us. We could give that a name… a ‘general election’ maybe?
The point is that it is our money, but we don’t get to decide how each pound (or even every £3000) gets spent. One of the things that we, as a nation, seemed to approve of our money being spent on (at least it was a big campaign issue during the last election) is illegal immigration. You can’t blame Labour for trying to reduce the number of illegal immigrants – after all, that seems to be precisely what a large number of people were calling for in 2005 – and that’s going to cost money. It’s going to cost £11,000 to force them to leave or it’s going to cost £3,000 to bribe them to do so.
1K.Orger
Shouldn't have let it get to this state in the first place.
How obvious was it that this was gonna happen.
I'd be more happy about the 3 grand bribe if the 8 grand saving went into more improved armed security at all entries and the building of camps for asylum seekers and immigrants to stay in while their cases are heard.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass, it's about learning to dance in the rain.
http://thetenaciousgardener.blogspot.co.uk/
1K.Orger
i agree it should't have gotten in that state in the first place...why should we be expected to pay the expense for the Governments faults??
the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab twice, once because of the failure to stop them getting into the country in the first place, then again to pay them to leave..
Paying them to go home will encourage them to come here in the first place..
Don't wrestle with pigs, you just get all dirty and the pig enjoys it.
If you are going to build camps for asylum seekers then why would you need to arm the border guards? Are the camps only to be used for those asylum seekers who are quick enough to dodge the bullets?
Oh, and immigrants (as opposed to asylum seekers) come into the country on visas. They don’t need to have their cases heard; they just need to walk through immigration control at the airport.
Banned
What about the ones arriving in the backs of trucks and underneath railway carriages. I don't blame them for trying. They are desperate enough to risk their lives. I blame this government for leaving the front door off the latch and the back door wide open.
As for your tutorial on tax, you make some valid points but please do not try and make out that Labours re-election was a vindication of their immigration policies. More people voted non-Labour than voted for them. Immigration was a major plank in the Tory campaign and their vote increased. A far right anti-immigrant party attracted almost one million votes! - unprecendented. Something was clearly going wrong in the minds of the majority.
Blair got back in because the economy was still performing well & interests rates were historically low - still are.
You seem in two mind 'it is and it isn't' H.M.G's money you say - -- wrong !
Government's do not have any money of their own.
They raise revenue from the general populace and business.
Tax is obviously necessary and is socially cohesive, we all pay our share (allegedly)
I still maintain that this policy a foolhardy and irresponsible method of disposing of it when it could go to a much better use.
I agree with Porshiepoo that border security is a much improved way of spending our money, on OUR behalf.
Senior Member
Didn't somebody suggest something similar in the late 1960s?
I seem to remember that the suggestion was that people who had come here from abroad and no longer wished to stay could be "assisted" to return home by having their fares paid for.
The "assisted" was immediately translated to mean "forced to return home", the person suggesting it was accused of being a "fascist racist thug" and the whole idea was scorned by some of the very people who are now suggesting the very same thing.
If you suggest it you are the "Devil Incarnate", if I suggest it I am being "Saintly".
Sounds just a little hypocritical to me.
Animals I like, people I tolerate.
Banned
I am minded of the old joke, probably not very politically correct now about the Indian chap at Manchester Airport buying an airline ticket home. The cost was £198.6/-. (yes it was that long ago folks) He only had £198.5/6d on him. So, he went into the road outside and asked the first man he saw to give him sixpence 'I need it to get home' he entreated.
'Here' came the reply, 'here's half a crown take four of your friends with you.'
Of course I never found this gag funny after the first time I heard it. Others like it were all over the television and radio in my youth from Bernard Manning to Stan Boardman we all know much better now than to relate such silly stories.
Don't we?
The essence of this new policy is actually the essence of the joke. A government paying to get rid of people who are politically inconvenient and to help them reach targets whilst not having the guts to say so. Hypocrites.
Erm… no, I really didn’t. I said that it is our money but that the system wouldn’t work if we decide how each individual pound gets spent.
That I'll agree with... I don't agree that immigrants should be politically inconvenient and I wish that the government would stop pandering to those who see them as such, but I do agree that they should at least come out and say why they are doing what they are doing.
Banned
The people concerned are, I believe bogus asylum seekers who tried to get into this country on a false premise. It's hard to see such a group as convenient, politically or otherwise. Yes, they are 'convenient' for those who would exploit cheap labour. This would be in the black economy and rob the revenue of the tax you are happy for them to spend on your behalf.
A pool of cheap immigrant labour, legal or otherwise also keeps down the wages of those already here. This is why wage inflation is so low in many areas of work. Even Eddie George ex chief of the Bank of England admitted this fairly recently.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks