The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that’s for a single person.

Figures? Citation?

Be fair, it might be me that’s wrong. The most recent number I had was from the Telegraph in 2014 – and the Telegraph is occasionally inaccurate.

And is the pay that person receives enough to require no benefit payments to themselves and any family they might bring with them ?

My wife earns £9 an hour. So no, she is not a net beneficiary. She works as a Teaching Assistant, so is doing a pretty valuable job. She also has a masters in pedagogy, so is better qualified than almost all other TAs. I think she’s an asset to our society, you are free to disagree.

The alleged breakeven only makes sense if you think paying tax is the only way a worker contributes to the country and the economy, which is too absurd to really reason with.

As a lot of you know, I work in the prison service. A large majority of prisoners will never ever lead useful or productive lives (apart from being allowed to breed & produce more of the same & creating more of a burden on society) while in the meantime we can take in immigrants who can help our society & integrate with our values & contribute to the economy.
However..It’s not a case of letting everyone in is it.

kimbers – Member

we are all immigrants

weve been doing it ever since we became human

its in our genes

some people have trouble accepting that populations and culture are dynamic, not static

Yes, we are all immigrants if you want to go that far.

We are all dynamic as we have evolved to compete with each others.

The moment we have brain activities we compete. Now competition has become the blueprint of our genes.

We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.

We may be human but that is the only similarity we have. i.e. intelligent being walking on two feet.

All the troubles/conflicts etc you see in the world now – competition.

Very ugly nasty competition. i.e. the ones that dominate the resources (whatever that is) refuse to share and those without the resources want them yesterday.

We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.

Speak for yourself.

RichPenny – Member

We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.

Speak for yourself. [/quote] You do not compete for resources in order to live?

Majority and if not all of our lives are based on competition.

Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources.

The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that’s for a single person

.

It’s for household take home and not single income.

It’s an awful article that messes around with the concept of average NHS usage and things like that (which comes later in life when you’ve paid all your Taxes before hand.)

It also doesn’t take into the account the benefit to Landlords/Agency’s/Employees of paying low wages to give them their big net benefit.

It’s a crooked mean way of interpreting facts.

If you want to correct it then these so called few that pay all the tax could pay better wages and thus more tax can be collected from the bottom? But you can’t have it both ways.

The point at which a household switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000

Torygraph.

Also what’s the point of a snapshot in time? People’s contributions change at different times of their life.

I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.

Whether it is a mean way to do things – well I can certainly see that particularly with respect to working benefits and minimum wage and the like. I object to subsiding Tescos profit.

I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.

It’s a made up number (jambafact) designed to bolster his racist / anti-immigrant view.

You do not compete for resources in order to live?
Majority and if not all of our lives are based on competition.

Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources.

I do not refuse to share. Didn’t you learn that as a child?

RichPenny – Member
I do not refuse to share. Didn’t you learn that as a child?

I did not ask you about sharing.

We were all taught to share but we evolved, again, to compete.

Once we are fully evolved (assume we have) into adulthood our instinct to compete become even more intense.

You might take your eyes off competition in order to share momentarily but that does not exclude from continuing your competition later on.

You have a job haven’t you? Why not try saying to your boss you share or donate all the extra to your colleague(s) who wants them. i.e. once you have breakeven you give the rest away.

Once we are fully evolved (assume we have) into adulthood our instinct to compete become even more intense.

What is the source of this info? It seems more an observation on your part rarther than factual.
I think that as people get older, they get more mellow and less competitive.

We evolved to share and cooperate within our own group, but compete with other groups. This is well known and has been studied.

The question is one of where we draw the lines for our group. As we’ve become more enlightened as a species we’ve tried to reduce the people we exclude. However we just voted to increase the numbers of excluded people. This seems like de-enlightenement.

captainsasquatch – Member
What is the source of this info? It seems more an observation on your part rarther than factual.

It is all over us but we just refuse to see it because we refuse to be labeled as competitive (various level)

I think that as people get older, they get more mellow and less competitive.

Not necessary the case. They may be old or getting older but if the mind is still strong they might compete. It all depends on circumstances of old age.

We have been taught to compete the moment we know how to walk.

All the educations that you receive to make you a “better” person is a form of competition. Yes, “better” but better than who? Why do you want to be better off than someone else if there is no concept of competition?

molgrips – Member
We evolved to share and cooperate within our own group, but compete with other groups. This is well known and has been studied.

I kind of agree but siblings do compete as well with each other just that the intensity might be different but I have seen nasty ones as well.

The question is one of where we draw the lines for our group. As we’ve become more enlightened as a species we’ve tried to reduce the people we exclude. However we just voted to increase the numbers of excluded people. This seems like de-enlightenement.

Remember limited resources.
The more you include the less to go around coz now you have to share more. (sharing cannot remain constant because some naturally want more)
The less to go around the “de-enlightenment” begins … again.
Competition begins but this time much more intense because you now have to compete with even more inclusive.
Your group will then decide to take from other group to share (force other to share) among your own in group.
Other group(s) then retaliate.

You draw the line by either not getting involve to enlighten yourselves by letting others (out group) to fight for resources amongst themselves (they need to learn to enlighten their own in group), or by maintaining the size of your in group.

I did not ask you about sharing.

We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.

See the and in your sentence?

You have a job haven’t you? Why not try saying to your boss you share or donate all the extra to your colleague(s) who wants them. i.e. once you have breakeven you give the rest away.

Correct, in the past I have argued for people in my team to be better paid at my own expense. Thanks for making my point 🙂

RichPenny – Member
See the and in your sentence?

[quote] chewkw – Member
Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources. [/quote]I was referring to competition. (see previous response)

RichPenny – Member
Correct, in the past I have argued for people in my team to be better paid at my own expense. Thanks for making my point

I have argued the same too for my team (pt workers) at the expense of the company. Normal thing to do is it not? Nothing special or to shout about. Sometimes we won, sometimes not.

So you have argued at your company’s expense to get better paid for your team? your own expense or the company’s expense? (other people money don’t count coz we all do that) i.e. try truly at your own expense by asking the company to shift your earning to others? Why not give your earning away instead i.e. cash after taxed.

A negative way of viewing your action is just “buying/bribing” team moral in public. Very common. A positive way of viewing is that you try to help others.

Even I can do better than that. As a PT worker I gave my entire set of working hours (my earning) to my older PT colleague (a true communist) when he was short of money. I gave those hours to him for more than 10 years where eventually he lose them all to others. I never got them back but just let it go.

I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.

Do you mean the figures he quotes, or his moral values? In either case, I would not care to speculate.

As a PT worker I gave my entire set of working hours (my earning) to my older PT colleague (a true communist) when he was short of money. I gave those hours to him for more than 10 years where eventually he lose them all to others. I never got them back but just let it go.

See? People do share when it’s not in their own selfish interest. Even you 🙂 Thanks for making my point again.

esselgruntfuttock – Member
As a lot of you know, I work in the prison service. A large majority of prisoners will never ever lead useful or productive lives (apart from being allowed to breed & produce more of the same & creating more of a burden on society)

A burden on society? £48000 per year to keep each one of ’em in there floating about the economy, each one of them employing people like you, and each one of them keeping corrupt middle class solicitors in the latest Porsche.
And where’s your evidence that the kids end up the same? Each one of those kids will become a tax payer in due course, the unfortunate ones will prop up a corrupt justice system and keep many layers of parasites in work

RichPenny – Member
See? People do share when it’s not in their own selfish interest. Even you Thanks for making my point again.

Not really. I ain’t sharing with someone I don’t know unlike you lot trying to save the world that is the difference.

Maybe the problem is really over population .maybe benefits should be dependant on not breading.

maybe benefits should be dependant on not breading.

Would that mean the end of the Great British Bake Off?

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TIUHqUayIck[/video]

Angela Leadsome saying that fruit picking jobs should be given to local British young people instead of immigrants.

Is this wise? If those young people weren’t picking fruit, would they be on the dole or in college learning a trade?

It’s not hard to imagine such low skilled jobs being a trap for local people, whereas for imported seasonal workers from countries with lower costs of living it could be a benefit. As a migrant, you could be a student or similar earning some useful cash in a few summers abroad; that’s different to a local who has no option but to do it every year.

Just a discussion point – I’m not saying that actually happens, I don’t know. But do such jobs trap people? If you work in an office or call centre, or in a trade, there are opportunities for development.

Angela Leadsome saying that fruit picking jobs should be given to local British young people instead of immigrants.

most of the fruit would stay un-picked!

Unless they started paying more for it – in which case it’d go up in price in the supermarket and stay un-bought!

It’s incredibly hard to make money from incidentally (unless they’ve stopped paying piecemeal for it). On your first day you make £10 because you’re not quick enough. So anyone with a choice gives up and finds something else. You either need to be forced to do it by a gangmaster, or presumably a kid who can improve before they need the money to live on.

most of the fruit would stay un-picked!

Indeed – they are filling a gap between supply and demand for labour.

There was a program on a while ago similar to your suggestion. A lad from Romania i think was picking asparagus. He got paid by KG picked, his average daily rate was about £150, not bad at all. They got a british lad on the dole to do the same job, he couldn’t be arsed. The farmer said he’d love to employ more British workers but they’re not interested!

@molgrips I used to do farm work in summer holidays when I was at Uni. Working in glass houses picking tomatoes or strawberries and wild oating for example (manually removing rouge plants from crops before harvesting). It was pretty hard work and another poster here famiiar with it said he’d rather claim benefits than do that work. There is the dilemma. IMO such work teaches people a life lesson. I see no reason if an EU citizen will travel large distances for such work an unemployed Brit shouldn’t do the same. This is a side issue re broader immigration but a real one imo.

The farmer said he’d love to employ more British workers but they’re not interested!

They’d be more motivated if the alternative was living on the streets or relying on charity and foodbanks

True. But £150 a day is not to be sniffed at.

IMO such work teaches people a life lesson.

I did it too, and it taught me how shit some jobs can be!

I see no reason if an EU citizen will travel large distances for such work an unemployed Brit shouldn’t do the same.

Well there are some reasons outlined in my post. Can you address them? Do you not think that such dead-end work could be seen as a trap? The migrant need only do them for a summer or two then can go somewhere else and do something else – because they are a migrant.

A lad from Romania i think was picking asparagus. He got paid by KG picked, his average daily rate was about £150, not bad at all.

It’s not the norm – or at least it wasn’t 20 years ago. The well practised ones could make a normal daily rate, £30 or so – the newbies made about a fiver.

They’d be more motivated if the alternative was living on the streets or relying on charity and foodbanks

I love your happy vision of society, Jam. Destitution and homelessness or a lifetime of grim work.

I used to do fruit pick (strawberries, soft fruits) as a holiday/weekend job at school (<16), while still living at home and going to school. It would never have paid enough to live on but was plenty for pocket money. May be the employee market they are aiming for is different?

Or it could be: parents don’t want their kids working these jobs (if any), or the kids get provided with enough by their parents.

It’s interesting that the demographic at the places I worked at is different to that mentioned above. I.e. mostly school kids rather than FTE as a means to live on.

Plenty of jobs to go round if you really want one – you can’t blame immigration. I got made redundant once and did anything, yes anything to get by – from stacking boxes in a warehouse to washing up in hotels. If there’s a shortage of jobs in your area then just move to somewhere where there is work (just like the immigrants do) – it’s not rocket science!

About 2 years ago DWP arranged training courses for unemployed people to learn how to pick fruit, they were guaranteed a job at the end of the 2 week course. Sounds a bit daft I know as what’s so difficult about picking strawberries that you need to be trained? but the courses covered the high standards required by fruit pickers to meet the supermarkets expectations, the inevitable H&S, how the farms operate and what the opportunities were, what the accommodation being offered was. The earnings of many of the experienced pickers was surprisingly high, but should a new picker not pick sufficient fruit their pay was bolstered by the grower to ensure it met minimum wages. However this was only done for a short period after which, if their picking didn’t improve, the picker was ‘let go’. For those who made the grade there was work guaranteed for most of the year as the soft fruit these days grows under polytunnels where it can grow almost all year round. There was also basic accommodation available in the form of old static caravans. What was the outcome? Only a very small percentage of the successful trainees took up the offer of work, and of those only a few remained after a few weeks. The growers were not surprised! If the migrant labour disappears then the fruit market in this country will collapse!

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-02/leadsom-brits-should-be-doing-more-farm-work-and-fruit-picking/

My wife’s an immigrant, my mum’s family are racists. But she’s OK because she’s white and a native English speaker, which means they can mouth off to her about how immigrants coming over here either to work harder than the natives in jobs the natives refuse to do or because their country has been decimated by wars that are sort of our fault and the could do with a helping hand and a bit of kindness are the worst thing to happen to this country.

Most immigrants have to work damn hard to get over here, and have a vast amount more get up and go than English people. We employed a chap who walked here from Syria. Funnily enough he gave much more of a shit about the job than anyone else. The downside was he was so motivated he got poached by another firm.

If we want productivity to decrease we could start employing British people, but I suspect Jamby/ninfan/dragon/thm (whichever selection of the four is arguing for total destruction of human decency today, I’ve got them all switched off) wouldn’t want that in their hyper-capitalist utopia either.

And this is all before we get into the stats of the thing. Immigrants from the EU bring a vast net benefit to the UK economy, and the “deficit” that right wing nut jobs care so much about will be eradicated much more quickly with more EU migration. Non-EU migration has no net gain, but that’s because there’s so many refugees who’ve lost absolutely everything and need a bit of charity.

The UK benefits from a net fiscal gain from migration of 0.46% of GDP. There are only a handful of countries in the EU that lose out from migration, notably Germany and France. Poland also loses out.

The difference between benefits and services claimed by immigrants and contributions from tax is, from reasonable sources, generally between +/-1% of GDP, and the majority of studies from unbiased sources show that there is a net gain from taxation from immigrants.

The Office of Budget Responsibility even predicts that more immigrants will, in the long term, reduce the national public debt. If there were to be zero net migration they say the public debt would be around £145bn by 2062, as opposed to £75bn with high net migration. This is based on the assumption of most immigrants being of working age.

All of this information is taken from various places on the Migration Observatory website.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

If you want to narrow this down specifically to the EEA then these immigrants pay 34% more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

Aside from the possible criminal database issue, which I would suspect effects probably half of naff all of the incoming population, I don’t see how anyone that does some actual research can object to free movement in the EU.

Everyone in the EU’s taxes pays for the EU as a whole at some point, so there’s no reason to say “you’ve not paid for your share so you can’t come in to the UK”.

For a bit of perspective my wife has lived in the UK for over 7 years and has no entitlement to vote, has contributed around £85000 to the UK public sector and has no entitlement to benefits. And I have to prove I earn a minimum of £18500 to “support” her in order for her to get a visa at a cost of £1000-£3500 every 2.5 years. And she now has to pay £500 to use the NHS, even though she’s paid tax.