The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (2 Viewers)

[martcov]

Here's another impact of free-movement; one that's been mentioned by politicians but anecdotal from my line of work.

I work with a lot of Indian programmers. It's much more efficient having some of them on-shore: I can pop round to their desks when I need to, to train them up and help when they get stuck. The company I work for just now had a policy of rotation (so one of the Indian guys came onshore for 1 year to be replaced by another).

In recent years I've lost two really bright guys that I'd trained up to be massively efficient. The first wanted to stay. He was employed via Tata and was happy to leave Tata and work directly for the company or indeed elsewhere. He couldn't stay. He returned to India and now works elsewhere. That's bad for him and the company.

The second had to leave after 1 year and still works for the company off-shore. He cannot get a visa and now the others cannot get visas either. As I've spent time with him, communication is now easy and it is efficient. However it's a loss to the UK economy. He's in his mid twenties and given the opportunity he's going to be a high-earner.

If we didn't have free movement we could choose to keep these guys here, settling, paying tax rather than two people earning, say, minimum wage washing cars in Sainsbury's car park. This is not a racist observation. I love the Poles; I have worked and lived in Poland; I speak Polish (a bit - very rusty now as I was there just after the iron curtain came down). I choose to use the car washers over the automated machines. It's an observation on the economics of the situation.

In the interests of balance, several years ago I did the same with a Bulgarian. He was a business analyst when I met him but I could see immediately he had much more potential. I spent a long time with him, training and working alongside. He's now a Project Manager and he will go on to more senior positions. He's also now a UK national. More of these please.

In the case of bright guys, they should always be welcome wherever they come from. I don't see any EU rule to stop them. Germany encourages them ( from places like India ).

 

---

[martcov]

I agree that presently we have a pensions crisis due to: 1) Longevity 2) The baby boom. This is also of course a root cause of NHS budget increase requirements. It's a temporary issue (regarding baby boomers) but not temporary re longevity. Adding millions of low paid workers from Europe isn't a solution: they are not contributing significantly to either tax (they are low paid) or the economy (many send money home).

I doubt we agree on the solution. I'd do it by continuing to reduce corporation tax (but simultaneously cracking down on supranational avoidance); encouraging high paid workers and encouraging people to save for themselves.

We need low paid workers in certain sectors. That remains a fact. The housing shortage is also caused by lack of affordable housing being built, speculators holding on to land, and people living longer instead of dying and their houses being put on the market - and, to an extent, new arrivals exagerating these problems. To simply say it is EU migrants fault and that they are all low skilled, oversimplifies the problems and could soon result in shock for some leavers when the economy doesn't improve, houses are not available and GDP pro capita falls as a result of labour shortages in certain sectors. Who are they going to blame next?

 

[Astute]

I don't understand the point here. They are not receiving a state pension at 55. If they saved up enough to retire at 55 why shouldn't they?

I agree. I have saved for a lot of years. I don't have new cars outside my house. I don't have 10k holidays like some people I work with. It has been a long hard slog but I could afford to retire at 55. But I won't as I would have a 13 and 14 year old at home. I am going at 59 when my youngest is 18. And for this I will get bile from those who have spent all their lives borrowing and spending then saying that it is unfair.

 

[Astute]

One other thing that makes me laugh is saying that we need mass migration to pay for the pensioners. So we have a spike ready for later years of those who have come here to live. They will be able to have the pension they have worked for. So we will have a few million extra to pay for.

Who is going to pay for this? We could always bring in another 10 million to help pay.

 

[Kingokings204]

1. You don't know whether it would be better spent.

2. Do you think food will become cheaper now that we are leaving? I don't. For one thing, we may have difficulty harvesting it.

3. How can competitors not compete if they are all under the same red tape as you claim? The red tape includes workers', people's and animal rights. Certain red tape will always be there. For example the classification of products such as bananas into Class I and Class II.

4. The EU has not got control. We are a sovereign state. We proved that by going to war with the USA ( one example ).

5. Do you think that Trump ( as an example ) is waiting for us to come to him so that he can make a deal to suit us? I don't. Try listening to him.

Your views are at best naiive.

1. True but at least we get to decide. That’s the point.

2. It will naturally become cheaper as if we can get food say fruit from Africa then of course it will be. Clothing is the same. If the EU allowed all these products no one would buy EU products hence why it is protectionist. That’s all well and good but it makes good more expensive. Its true.

3. Smaller companies can’t compete with the increased cost of legislation. It does include rights and it’s not all bad no but a lot is purposefully designed badly. We chuck good fish back in the sea that will die. We have to. You dont agree surely? Well it’s sole eu legislation says we have to. not very ethical.

4. We are not a sovereign state. We are part of a union wanting one border one one currency. We all know it and you want it. I don’t. It’s not indepedant for sure.

5. I thought trump was a liar you told me so. Oh I will believe him now because you’ve changed your mind. Which one is it? I can’t keep up. He will want a deal that suits USA and we want to suit Britain. We have a trade surplus but don't with the EU. No wonder you want us to stay.

Your views are naive at best. Enjoy.

 

[mrtrench]

We need low paid workers in certain sectors. That remains a fact. The housing shortage is also caused by lack of affordable housing being built, speculators holding on to land, and people living longer instead of dying and their houses being put on the market - and, to an extent, new arrivals exagerating these problems. To simply say it is EU migrants fault and that they are all low skilled, oversimplifies the problems and could soon result in shock for some leavers when the economy doesn't improve, houses are not available and GDP pro capita falls as a result of labour shortages in certain sectors. Who are they going to blame next?

And if we need some low skilled workers we can let some in. We don't need people washing cars manually in a supermarket car park next to a machine. The reason cited for low growth projections was productivity after all. One of the major reasons for low UK productivity is the massive availability of cheap low skilled labour.

Yes, we need to build more houses, however after the budget there were even then mumbles from experts saying the ambitions were not achievable. Until the Brexit vote we had 330k net immigration per year and rising. How many houses do you want to build? Is 500k immigration and 350k houses a year too much? How about 1 million net immigration and 600k houses per year? When is too much?

Why are you so against the low-paid in this country and young people wanting to buy a house? And why personalise it ("it is EU migrants' fault")? It's human nature to move around to earn more money - why shouldn't they? I applaud their proactivity; of course it's not their fault. It's our fault for allowing it happen.

 

[dutchman]

I don't understand the point here. They are not receiving a state pension at 55. If they saved up enough to retire at 55 why shouldn't they?

Why should they receive a tax concession when everyone else is told they must slave away until they are 68 or 70 before they can enjoy the same privilege?

 

[Astute]

And isn't it strange how my links to the landed gentry got mainly ignored.

So over 50 billion is handed out by the EU to people with land that don't farm on it. So we need intensive farming on the land that is used. Since it started a lot of our wildlife has been dying off. But it protects food prices. Intensive farming is expensive.

About half of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies each year. Last year it was 58 billion. But now there is revolt as cheap inports are getting in.

Only French farmers will save us from the madness of Europe

 

[mrtrench]

Why should they receive a tax concession when everyone else is told they must slave away until they are 68 or 70 before they can enjoy the same privilege?

What tax concession? You mean the tax concession that everyone has to save for a pension that is capped at £40k?

Nobody is told they have to slave away to 68 or 70; they have the option to save themselves. They just cannot pick up a state pension until later - exactly like the people retiring at 55. Unless I'm missing something I'm not aware of, your argument rather sounds like jealousy.

 

[mrtrench]

Just like Astute, I can afford to semi-retire at 54. All my career I saved 20% plus into private pensions. Never bought a new car; often skip holidays and run other businesses to supplement my savings. Never wasted money on gadgets. I've never dodged a single tax. What did I do wrong exactly and why do others get to judge how I use my money and when to spend it?

 

[Astute]

Why should they receive a tax concession when everyone else is told they must slave away until they are 68 or 70 before they can enjoy the same privilege?

They don't get a state pension at 55. We slave away until our retirement age to get the state pension. And the rest is up to yourself.

I had my wife for years telling me it was a waste of money pumping money into a pension. If I had listened to her we would be destitute at retirement. At times we could have done with the money. Yes I have had tax concessions. But I will pay tax when I collect my pension. I also won't be relying on the state to look after me. I will take 25% tax free then pay tax on the rest.

Or would you prefer it if I had not saved over a lot of years and had a better lifestyle and been a burden on the state?

 

[skybluetony176]

One other thing that makes me laugh is saying that we need mass migration to pay for the pensioners. So we have a spike ready for later years of those who have come here to live. They will be able to have the pension they have worked for. So we will have a few million extra to pay for.

Who is going to pay for this? We could always bring in another 10 million to help pay.

You seem to think that once an EUimmigrant comes to the U.K. they never go home. The majority are only here for a period of time before returning home. In other words they arrive, work for 3-5 years then go home having contributed 3-5 years of tax payments and not stayed long enough to claim things like a pension. They’re nett contributors and if they do settle here and pay taxes here not only are they entitled to it, they’ve earned it. I would suggest that people who have never worked a day in there life as a lifestyle choice are a far bigger drain on the pension system having never contributed to it.

 

[Astute]

You seem to think that once an EUimmigrant comes to the U.K. they never go home. The majority are only here for a period of time before returning home. In other words they arrive, work for 3-5 years then go home having contributed 3-5 years of tax payments and not stayed long enough to claim things like a pension. They’re nett contributors and if they do settle here and pay taxes here not only are they entitled to it, they’ve earned it. I would suggest that people who have never worked a day in there life as a lifestyle choice are a far bigger drain on the pension system having never contributed to it.

Of course those who have never worked and have the aim of never legally working are a drain if they don't have a proper disability stopping them from working.

But this is an EU thread. Most do not go home after a few years. If they did our population wouldn't be constantly going up because of migration. Yes some do come for a few years to make money. But some doesn't = to most.

If most go back to where they came from why is it so urgent to sort out that they can stay after we leave the EU?

 

[Sick Boy]

Of course those who have never worked and have the aim of never legally working are a drain if they don't have a proper disability stopping them from working.

But this is an EU thread. Most do not go home after a few years. If they did our population wouldn't be constantly going up because of migration. Yes some do come for a few years to make money. But some doesn't = to most.

If most go back to where they came from why is it so urgent to sort out that they can stay after we leave the EU?

Because not all of them wish to leave as soon as Brexit happens and the country needs to try and appear as though it is going to welcome those looking to work. The narrative that EU migrants are drain upon our society is nonsense.

My parents have suddenly announced that they are looking to get out and move back over to Ireland within the year, so that's two less migrants for you worry about, despite the fact they paid taxes for 35+ years here.

 

[dutchman]

What tax concession? You mean the tax concession that everyone has to save for a pension that is capped at £40k?

£40k per year which is more than most people earn to begin with!

And also I think you'll find that company executives (which I specifically mentioned) do not have to "save" for their private pension as it is provided separately by their employer.

 

[skybluetony176]

Of course those who have never worked and have the aim of never legally working are a drain if they don't have a proper disability stopping them from working.

But this is an EU thread. Most do not go home after a few years. If they did our population wouldn't be constantly going up because of migration. Yes some do come for a few years to make money. But some doesn't = to most.

If most go back to where they came from why is it so urgent to sort out that they can stay after we leave the EU?

You do realise that British people breed and make other British people. In some parts of the U.K. it’s common to have large families, my mother is one of 12 for instance. There’s multiple reasons why the population grows let’s not try to make out it’s all the fault of immigrants.

 

[dutchman]

Or would you prefer it if I had not saved over a lot of years and had a better lifestyle and been a burden on the state?

My complaint is that those who could afford a private pension fund are (or were) allowed access to it from the age of 55 whereas those who couldn't afford to save for one are forced to wait until they reach state pension age before they can access their state pension.

That is now changing slightly and access in future will be limited to a minimum of five years before state pension age.

 

[Astute]

Because not all of them wish to leave as soon as Brexit happens and the country needs to try and appear as though it is going to welcome those looking to work. The narrative that EU migrants are drain upon our society is nonsense.

My parents have suddenly announced that they are looking to get out and move back over to Ireland within the year, so that's two less migrants for you worry about, despite the fact they paid taxes for 35+ years here.

Why is it your main aim to twist everything what I say?

 

[Astute]

You do realise that British people breed and make other British people. In some parts of the U.K. it’s common to have large families, my mother is one of 12 for instance. There’s multiple reasons why the population grows let’s not try to make out it’s all the fault of immigrants.

Are you trying to say that our population isn't going up because of migration?

Why can't we just keep to the truth on this thread?

 

[martcov]

And if we need some low skilled workers we can let some in. We don't need people washing cars manually in a supermarket car park next to a machine. The reason cited for low growth projections was productivity after all. One of the major reasons for low UK productivity is the massive availability of cheap low skilled labour.

Yes, we need to build more houses, however after the budget there were even then mumbles from experts saying the ambitions were not achievable. Until the Brexit vote we had 330k net immigration per year and rising. How many houses do you want to build? Is 500k immigration and 350k houses a year too much? How about 1 million net immigration and 600k houses per year? When is too much?

Why are you so against the low-paid in this country and young people wanting to buy a house? And why personalise it ("it is EU migrants' fault")? It's human nature to move around to earn more money -
why shouldn't they? I applaud their proactivity; of course it's not their fault. It's our fault for allowing it happen.

I am not against young people making money and buying houses. Free movement allows people to move to the country where this can best be achieved. I am sorry to hear what terrible conditions there are in Britain. It is a pity that our young will lose their right to try their luck in Europe- as I did. I am not one of those blaming poor Romanians for trying to better themselves and would rather pay them than a machine.

How many poor unskilled car washers buy houses? Or cars? And how many hotel and pub workers have live-in accommodation and therefore don’t effect the housing market? If we keep living longer we have a greater effect on housing and increase the need for immigration. Short of killing the old ( sarcasm, not what I want ), we won’t stop that by leaving the EU,

I don’t know how much house building is too much, but I do know how much too little is. I also know that developers like building fewer but more expensive housing and, that left to pure market factors, affordable housing won’t happen in large enough numbers.

 

[Astute]

My complaint is that those who could afford a private pension fund are (or were) allowed access to it from the age of 55 whereas those who couldn't afford to save for one are forced to wait until they reach state pension age before they can access their state pension.

That is now changing slightly and access in future will be limited to a minimum of five years before state pension age.

My state retirement age has gone up to 67. I can take my private pension at 55. Not long ago it was 50.

As I said earlier I couldn't always afford it. But I made sacrifices. Some people at work wonder why I drive old cars. A couple of weeks ago I bought another car. It is 17 years old. Because of its age the insurance is less than £200. I could have paid cash for a new car. But that would have been a years spending in retirement. We could have an expensive holiday. But as usual we will do it on the cheap. Will hire a villa and drive there. Have you seen how much it is to hire a 7 seater motor? We don't do poolside holidays. We go places to see them.

You can't lump everyone together. Many of us scrimp and save for retirement. I have been doing it for about 25 years.

 

[martcov]

Of course those who have never worked and have the aim of never legally working are a drain if they don't have a proper disability stopping them from working.

But this is an EU thread. Most do not go home after a few years. If they did our population wouldn't be constantly going up because of migration. Yes some do come for a few years to make money. But some doesn't = to most.

If most go back to where they came from why is it so urgent to sort out that they can stay after we leave the EU?

Partly because of UK citizens rights in the EU. No one wants a tit for tat battle. No one who either is a EU migrant to the UK, or a UK migrant to the EU that is. Uneducated potato pickers in Boston or postal workers in Chatham chomping at the bit for Brexit don’t give a toss of course.

 

[Marty]

My complaint is that those who could afford a private pension fund are (or were) allowed access to it from the age of 55 whereas those who couldn't afford to save for one are forced to wait until they reach state pension age before they can access their state pension.

That is now changing slightly and access in future will be limited to a minimum of five years before state pension age.

Serious question, but whats wrong with people who have managed to put a bit away, access it early and be able to enjoy it while they're still fit and healthy before old age catches up with them. It's their money isn't it?

 

[dutchman]

Serious question, but whats wrong with people who have managed to put a bit away, access it early and be able to enjoy it while they're still fit and healthy before old age catches up with them. It's their money isn't it?

Not entirely as it was exempted from income tax. If they choose to invest their money outside of a tax-exempt scheme then they're free to access their money at any time they wish.

The point is the current rules perpetuate the class division between those who can afford to save for a private pension and those who can't.

 

[Astute]

Serious question, but whats wrong with people who have managed to put a bit away, access it early and be able to enjoy it while they're still fit and healthy before old age catches up with them. It's their money isn't it?

And pay tax on it whilst not being a burden on the state.

Yes I will also get a state pension at 67 if I live that long and they don't change it again. But I will be taxed on it all. And I won't get as much as those who have never worked as I had to contract out for many of the qualifying years. But I don't complain.

 

[dutchman]

You can't lump everyone together. Many of us scrimp and save for retirement. I have been doing it for about 25 years.

That's why I specifically mentioned company executives who in most cases aren't required to contribute a single penny of their own earnings even though they can well afford to.

 

[Astute]

Not entirely as it was exempted from income tax. If they choose to invest their money outside of a tax-exempt scheme then they're free to access their money at any time they wish.

The point is the current rules perpetuate the class division between those who can afford to save for a private pension and those who can't.

You can get the money these days if even tax free savings. But you pay a massive amount of tax to get your hands on it if you take it in one go.

Would you have preferred it if I hadn't saved and became a burden on the state in old age?

 

[Astute]

That's why I specifically mentioned company executives who in most cases aren't required to contribute a single penny of their own earnings even though they can well afford to.

You mean like MEP's?

 

[dutchman]

And pay tax on it whilst not being a burden on the state.

In what way are people who've paid national insurance contributions their entire working life 'a burden on the state'?

Yes I will also get a state pension at 67 if I live that long and they don't change it again. But I will be taxed on it all. And I won't get as much as those who have never worked as I had to contract out for many of the qualifying years. But I don't complain.

I'm sorry, I don't understand that bit. How will those 'who have never worked' qualify for a larger state pension than yourself since it is only paid to those who've made the minimum qualifying number of national insurance contributions?

 

[Marty]

It sounds a hugely complicated situation, but I'm a firm believer of reaping what you sow. If people go without in order to be able to retire early, then fair play to them and I don't think they should be hit, that's the realism of it. The top CEO's or MP's are the exception to the rule in this case, but I think we should be doing more with the likes of Amazon and Starbucks who don't pay their way.

 

[Astute]

The point is the current rules perpetuate the class division between those who can afford to save for a private pension and those who can't.

I am working class. I don't have the latest things. I wait until the prices drop. The newest car I have ever bought was 3 /2 years old. And that was a Cavalier :smuggrin:

Yes I know that not everyone can afford to do it. But millions more could. But they live for today and moan about their lot.

What is the average monthly cost of loan repayments and cost of renting a new car for 3 years when they say it is their car?

The 17 year old car I have just bought is an E class 7 seater. Was about 40k new. I paid £750. Only done 93k miles and not the usual rustbox. Renting a new car would have cost me that much in 3 months. And wouldn't have been as good. But mine is an X reg and not a 67 plate. So there is an 8k saving there alone over 3 years. 8k in my pension pot. And in 3 years I will still own it. The rental car goes back. I don't need to keep up with neighbours or friends.

 

[Astute]

That's why I specifically mentioned company executives who in most cases aren't required to contribute a single penny of their own earnings even though they can well afford to.

They do in the company that I work for.

 

[Astute]

In what way are people who've paid national insurance contributions their entire working life 'a burden on the state'?



I'm sorry, I don't understand that bit. How will those 'who have never worked' qualify for a larger state pension than yourself since it is only paid to those who've made the minimum qualifying number of national insurance contributions?

If I didn't have a pension and hadn't bought my own house I would be a burden on the state as it would have to keep me with somewhere to live and look after me.

If you don't work and are on benefits you get NI contributions paid. If you had to contract out because of a pension your company benefited through paying less tax. You saved a couple of quid a month in NI contributions. Full pension benefits last time I looked were £155 a week. I will get about £120 a week. And because I have saved for a lot of years I will have to pay tax on all of my reduced state pension. So I will end up less than £100 a week better off when I qualify.

Fair?

 

[skybluetony176]

Are you trying to say that our population isn't going up because of migration?

Why can't we just keep to the truth on this thread?

Our population has always gone up from migration, it’s not a new phenomenon caused by EU membership. I’m just completing your half truths. Look at how diverse our country is and how diverse it’s been for centuries. The EU doesn’t even account for half the immigration into the U.K.

 

[mrtrench]

And pay tax on it whilst not being a burden on the state.

Yes I will also get a state pension at 67 if I live that long and they don't change it again. But I will be taxed on it all. And I won't get as much as those who have never worked as I had to contract out for many of the qualifying years. But I don't complain.

It's like the Little Red Hen and the Grains of Wheat isn't it? One goes without much all one's life and saves; but when you get to retirement age it's not fair and we should share our savings. McDonnell says he wants to tax savings at 20% as a wealth tax. He can fuck off.