Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[Saul Goodman]

I’ve got no problem with people who don’t want to work so long as they don’t expect the community to pay their living. I’m actually currently not working for two months!

I think paid voluntary unemployment is essential, if only to annoy Daily Mail readers

 

[MickiQ]

I’ve got no problem with people who don’t want to work so long as they don’t expect the community to pay their living. I’m actually currently not working for two months!

Why? The cost of paying them is probably less than the cost of slinging them in prison which is the only other likely option. Yes there are some people who are just too lazy and feckless to work but cutting off their benefits won't give them a work ethic. Instead of sitting at home drinking cheap lager, watching telly and occupying space rent free in the heads of Daily Mail readers they'll be out robbing and mugging those who do work.
Besides there is one almighty problem with any attempt to police benefits and that the problem is too big and complex for a perfect solution.
You either ensure that no-one gets what they don't deserve and risk people falling between the cracks and not getting the help they need OR you ensure that everyone gets what they need and accept that a few deadbeats get what they're not entitled to.
I'd sooner have the second than the first and I speak as a man who has quite frankly paid an eye watering amount in tax these last few years.

 

[Edie]

Why? The cost of paying them is probably less than the cost of slinging them in prison which is the only other likely option. Yes there are some people who are just too lazy and feckless to work but cutting off their benefits won't give them a work ethic. Instead of sitting at home drinking cheap lager, watching telly and occupying space rent free in the heads of Daily Mail readers they'll be out robbing and mugging those who do work.
Besides there is one almighty problem with any attempt to police benefits and that the problem is too big and complex for a perfect solution.
You either ensure that no-one gets what they don't deserve and risk people falling between the cracks and not getting the help they need OR you ensure that everyone gets what they need and accept that a few deadbeats get what they're not entitled to.
I'd sooner have the second than the first and I speak as a man who has quite frankly paid an eye watering amount in tax these last few years.

I think maybe universal income is a better solution

 

[MickiQ]

I think maybe universal income is a better solution

Oh absolutely and indeed over the next few decades as more and more jobs are lost to automation then I think it will be a straight choice of UI or social collapse. However in the meantime I for one am not arsed by a few benefit cheats. Protestant Work Ethics not withstanding then I would sooner just put up with them since there lots more people who genuinely need help.
However alas the obsession with PWE currently seems to be very strong amongst the decision makers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think maybe universal income is a better solution

But that is paying people who don't want to work. That's the whole point of it - everyone gets some money regardless, no obligation attached.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd sooner have the second than the first and I speak as a man who has quite frankly earned an eye watering amount these last few years.

CFY

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your post would have got a like. This is spot on:

You either ensure that no-one gets what they don't deserve and risk people falling between the cracks and not getting the help they need OR you ensure that everyone gets what they need and accept that a few deadbeats get what they're not entitled to.

Wherever a benefit is means-tested, significant numbers of people always fall through the gaps.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Why? The cost of paying them is probably less than the cost of slinging them in prison which is the only other likely option.

It costs over £50k a year to keep someone in prison. Give half of that in tax free cash to anybody that doesn't want to work, and there would be no need to build new prisons, as the prisons would be almost empty.
Imagine how much money would be saved if it wasn't being spent on enforcing stupid drug laws and subsequent prison terms, and chasing people who might be be claiming 6 quid more dole than they're entitled to.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Administering the dole is also hugely expensive. Making the lives of the unemployed a misery costs a lot of money.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ok, gracie por el classe de inglesa. Parace que mi idioma inglesa ha disminuido recientemente. Pero, arrogancia sobre los idiomas no es linda. I'd rather be someone who is imperfect in multiple languages, than the type who berrates someones ability in one, or even two, or whatever.

It seems you're not interested in talking to me in good faith though, so I'll bow out.

It seems to me that it's you who isn't interested in discussing anything in good faith, you patronising prick, and that's indicated in your initial reply to me.

Let's remind ourselves how this started. You replied with the following:

No, I want to know specifically what I've said thay was arrant bollocks. If someone accuses you of talking arrant bollocks I think its perfectly reasonable to ask what said arrant bollocks is.

Only, I wasn't accusing you of anything. You appeared to be suggesting that all opinions are equal. I was telling you that wasn't the case. You got your knickers in a twist about it. You're making this about you. Grow up, ffs.

After this, you embarked on a treatise.

 

[Pickman's model]

It seems to me that it's you who isn't interested in discussing anything in good faith, you patronising prick, and that's indicated in your initial reply to me.

Let's remind ourselves how this started. You replied with the following:

Only, I wasn't accusing you of anything. You appeared to be suggesting that all opinions are equal. I was telling you that wasn't the case. You got your knickers in a twist about it. You're making this about you. Grow up, ffs.

After this, you embarked on a treatise.

But it wasn't a treat

 

[Edie]

But that is paying people who don't want to work. That's the whole point of it - everyone gets some money regardless, no obligation attached.

I know. I think it’s a neat idea. And fair.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I know. I think it’s a neat idea. And fair.

But...

I’ve got no problem with people who don’t want to work so long as they don’t expect the community to pay their living. I’m actually currently not working for two months!

Seems a little contradictory.

There's a really simple way to get most people to work. Make working more attractive than not working.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

It costs over £50k a year to keep someone in prison. Give half of that in tax free cash to anybody that doesn't want to work, and there would be no need to build new prisons, as the prisons would be almost empty.
Imagine how much money would be saved if it wasn't being spent on enforcing stupid drug laws and subsequent prison terms, and chasing people who might be be claiming 6 quid more dole than they're entitled to.

£25k tax free is a lot more than very many people earn, working full time.

 

[chilango]

I'm with Crass on this one.

 

[Saul Goodman]

£25k tax free is a lot more than very many people earn, working full time.

Exactly

 

[PTK]

It may interest people to know that there have been schemes in thi country that have required the long-term unemployed to work for their dole.

 

[mojo pixy]

I’ve got no problem with people who don’t want to work so long as they don’t expect the community to pay their living. I’m actually currently not working for two months!

OK but that's not what I asked, if you'll excuse me. Do you think that if someone declines to work, they should simply be left with no home or food? (eta, assuming they don't have any particular someone who's happy to take care of them and pay their way)

 

[lengualo]

It seems to me that it's you who isn't interested in discussing anything in good faith, you patronising prick, and that's indicated in your initial reply to me.

You're the one who took digs at my language skills. You make a habit of that? With people who are dyslexic? Who didn't get the best education? Non native and bilingual speakers? If not, then don't do it at all because you don't know peoples circumstances. You understood what I was tring to say, because you corrected it, and instead of replying to the point I made you decided to mock. Whether you disagree with me and think I'm a prick or not, you're way out of line for that.

Let's remind ourselves how this started. You replied with the following:

Only, I wasn't accusing you of anything. You appeared to be suggesting that all opinions are equal. I was telling you that wasn't the case. You got your knickers in a twist about it. You're making this about you. Grow up, ffs.

OK, so you interjected into a heated conversation trying to be smart? Fine, I retract my earlier comment to you however, as I pointed out in an earlier response, you are incorrect in the BIB, I do not consider ALL opinions to be equal and considering we are on a left wing progressive forum I presume most of us are more or less on the same kind of page and don't have to be pedantic. In the context of what was being discussed I think my comments were fair.

After this, you embarked on a treatise.

Treatise? See above. I'm participating with opinions on an internet forum, like 90% of people do. I'm not conducting no academic work or acting as an authority source. I saw that there is a forum on here for academic discussion, so presume this board is more for casual conversation.

 

[brogdale]

I know. I think it’s a neat idea. And fair.

I reckon most here are aware of the features of UBI that might attract someone with your reactionary politics, but what aspects of UBI do you think would be in the interest of the working class?

 

[Pickman's model]

But...

Seems a little contradictory.

There's a really simple way to get most people to work. Make working more attractive than not working.

make work seem like not working

 

[Edie]

I reckon most here are aware of the features of UBI that might attract someone with your reactionary politics, but what aspects of UBI do you think would be in the interest of the working class?

Out of interest what does reactionary mean- is it another way of saying conservative? Like reacting against change?

I’ve already answered this but off the top of my head:
Support already available when circumstances change quickly
Not means tested- allows people to keep assets they’ve earnt
Lower administration costs
Fair
Allows people to be more agile if they want to change jobs or careers or gain new skills
Supports parents to care for their own children rather than be forced to access state run childcare
Protects children from poverty
Work then really does pay- instead of this trap where people can’t afford to work because it’ll impact their benefits- better for communities

 

[brogdale]

Out of interest what does reactionary mean- is it another way of saying conservative? Like reacting against change?

I’ve already answered this but off the top of my head:
Support already available when circumstances change quickly
Not means tested- allows people to keep assets they’ve earnt
Lower administration costs
Fair
Allows people to be more agile if they want to change jobs or careers or gain new skills
Supports parents to care for their own children rather than be forced to access state run childcare
Protects children from poverty
Work then really does pay- instead of this trap where people can’t afford to work because it’ll impact their benefits- better for communities

Interesting list; thanks. Can't say that i find it very convincing...

1. When precarious circumstances change people often require changes in the level of support available; wouldn't UBI would be a static, fixed sum?
2. Not being means tested literally means that the wealthier will be advantaged.
3. If UBI did lower administration that implies it would replace all other state transfer payments? I can see how the neoliberal consolidator state would see that as an advantage, but not the working class.
4. Occupational mobility derives from education, investment in training/CPD etc. not a a flat-rate UBI and 'agility' always smacks of the supply side reforms beloved of neoliberal capital
5. I'm not sure what level of UBI you envisage if you think it would enable stay-at-home parenting?
6. If UBI replaced all other welfare state transfer payments clearly rates of poverty, including child poverty, would soar.
7. If wages have have fallen to such a degree that capital requires UBI to maintain effective demand for continued accumulation I don't think that anyone could argue that "work really does pay".

Your list does demonstrate why neoliberal capital might see the potential of UBI to enable accelerated off-shoring and austerity, but I don't see any advantage for labour.

 

[Edie]

Interesting list; thanks. Can't say that i find it very convincing...

1. When precarious circumstances change people often require changes in the level of support available; wouldn't UBI would be a static, fixed sum?
2. Not being means tested literally means that the wealthier will be advantaged.
3. If UBI did lower administration that implies it would replace all other state transfer payments? I can see how the neoliberal consolidator state would see that as an advantage, but not the working class.
4. Occupational mobility derives from education, investment in training/CPD etc. not a a flat-rate UBI and 'agility' always smacks of the supply side reforms beloved of neoliberal capital
5. I'm not sure what level of UBI you envisage if you think it would enable stay-at-home parenting?
6. If UBI replaced all other welfare state transfer payments clearly rates of poverty, including child poverty, would soar.
7. If wages have have fallen to such a degree that capital requires UBI to maintain effective demand for continued accumulation I don't think that anyone could argue that "work really does pay".

Your list does demonstrate why neoliberal capital might see the potential of UBI to enable accelerated off-shoring and austerity, but I don't see any advantage for labour.

Umm ok

 

[PTK]

Conservatives want to maintain things as they are, and reactionaries want to return to things as they were.

It amazes me that our education system does not teach such basic political concepts.

 

[brogdale]

Umm ok

No, not really OK at all, unless you’re an off-shoring capitalist
worried about who will buy your crap.

 

[Edie]

No, not really OK at all, unless you’re an off-shoring capitali worried about who will buy your crap.

Brogdale I am not an off shoring capitalist

 

[brogdale]

Conservatives want to maintain things as they are, and reactionaries want to return to things as they were.

It amazes me that our education system does not teach such basic political concepts.

Agreed, but not all that amazing when you consider in whose interests the curriculum is devised.

 

[PTK]

Agreed, but not all that amazing when you consider in whose interests the curriculum is devised.

Yeah, but you would think that by the time people got to university they would own a dictionary, and be able to look up terms with which they were not familiar.

 

[brogdale]

Brogdale I am not an off shoring capitalist

Didn’t say you were; just that’s the class that might benefit from the ideas that you repeat.