LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Thank youkingstongraham said:
Across England.surrey_commuter said:
is that across the board or for Kingston?kingstongraham said:
52% from council tax, and 17% from retained business rates. This has changed significantly over the last 10 years.surrey_commuter said:rjsterry said:
Agree on stamp duty. Not sure a different arbitrary tax is any better. What are your thoughts on a local income tax?surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
The local bit is all bollocks as the vast majority of funds come from central grants so I would not bother with another tax on earnings.
I would put stamp duty back to a flat rate of 1% on all transactions and then extract the rest from upping council tax
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/local-government-funding-england
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/housing-communities-and-local-government-committee/local-government-finance-and-the-2019-spending-review/written/100703.html
From the NAO - "Government funding for local authorities has fallen by an estimated 49.1% in real terms from 2010-11 to 2017-18."0 -
I was using it to explain why somebody could object to labour mobility into the UK but want to encourage mobility within the UK.Dorset_Boy said:
If xenophobia is the fear or hatred of something foreign, belief in nationhood doesn't equate to xenophobia by default, though obviously in some situations it may do.surrey_commuter said:
xenophobiarick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
It would of course be interesting to see how relaxed the local were if Ford opened a giant car factory on Merseyside and recruited 7,000 recently laid off mackems0 -
You can relax about that, there's not much chance of any giant car factories being opened anywhere in the UK in the foreseeable futuresurrey_commuter said:
I was using it to explain why somebody could object to labour mobility into the UK but want to encourage mobility within the UK.Dorset_Boy said:
If xenophobia is the fear or hatred of something foreign, belief in nationhood doesn't equate to xenophobia by default, though obviously in some situations it may do.surrey_commuter said:
xenophobiarick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
It would of course be interesting to see how relaxed the local were if Ford opened a giant car factory on Merseyside and recruited 7,000 recently laid off mackems
0 -
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.0 -
You need to accept that they will always resent the obvious outsider, that could just as easily be somebody from the next village or the person whose family has only lived in the village for two generationsrick_chasey said:
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.0 -
Local village for local people, innit.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Lol you're misunderstanding me.surrey_commuter said:
You need to accept that they will always resent the obvious outsider, that could just as easily be somebody from the next village or the person whose family has only lived in the village for two generationsrick_chasey said:
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.
I know that this is a thing. I know it exists.
I am saying there is logical dissonance in the position, unless you think people from other nations are materially different to people from your own nation.
That is what I am trying to tease out of people.
I would counter that argument by suggesting people who are willing to uproot their entire lives to live in a particular society are unlikely to be that different - with some caveats.
I am harsher on migrants who don't want to learn the language than others, but I am much more relaxed about who comes in to live in a society.0 -
I get all that but for more insular communities there will always be an outsider.rick_chasey said:
Lol you're misunderstanding me.surrey_commuter said:
You need to accept that they will always resent the obvious outsider, that could just as easily be somebody from the next village or the person whose family has only lived in the village for two generationsrick_chasey said:
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.
I know that this is a thing. I know it exists.
I am saying there is logical dissonance in the position, unless you think people from other nations are materially different to people from your own nation.
That is what I am trying to tease out of people.
I would counter that argument by suggesting people who are willing to uproot their entire lives to live in a particular society are unlikely to be that different - with some caveats.
I am harsher on migrants who don't want to learn the language than others, but I am much more relaxed about who comes in to live in a society.
You and I don't care but a lot of other people do.
In some parts of Wales they will hate you for being English and if you aren't there they will hate somebody for coming from another part of Wales.
in London people stab each other for having a different post code0 -
Tbf that's generally gang members (doing the stabbing) not just anyone and everyone.surrey_commuter said:
I get all that but for more insular communities there will always be an outsider.rick_chasey said:
Lol you're misunderstanding me.surrey_commuter said:
You need to accept that they will always resent the obvious outsider, that could just as easily be somebody from the next village or the person whose family has only lived in the village for two generationsrick_chasey said:
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.
I know that this is a thing. I know it exists.
I am saying there is logical dissonance in the position, unless you think people from other nations are materially different to people from your own nation.
That is what I am trying to tease out of people.
I would counter that argument by suggesting people who are willing to uproot their entire lives to live in a particular society are unlikely to be that different - with some caveats.
I am harsher on migrants who don't want to learn the language than others, but I am much more relaxed about who comes in to live in a society.
You and I don't care but a lot of other people do.
In some parts of Wales they will hate you for being English and if you aren't there they will hate somebody for coming from another part of Wales.
in London people stab each other for having a different post code
0 -
still members of a community taking exception to outsiderselbowloh said:
Tbf that's generally gang members (doing the stabbing) not just anyone and everyone.surrey_commuter said:
I get all that but for more insular communities there will always be an outsider.rick_chasey said:
Lol you're misunderstanding me.surrey_commuter said:
You need to accept that they will always resent the obvious outsider, that could just as easily be somebody from the next village or the person whose family has only lived in the village for two generationsrick_chasey said:
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.
I know that this is a thing. I know it exists.
I am saying there is logical dissonance in the position, unless you think people from other nations are materially different to people from your own nation.
That is what I am trying to tease out of people.
I would counter that argument by suggesting people who are willing to uproot their entire lives to live in a particular society are unlikely to be that different - with some caveats.
I am harsher on migrants who don't want to learn the language than others, but I am much more relaxed about who comes in to live in a society.
You and I don't care but a lot of other people do.
In some parts of Wales they will hate you for being English and if you aren't there they will hate somebody for coming from another part of Wales.
in London people stab each other for having a different post code0 -
I don't think those people believe in the value of social mobility?surrey_commuter said:
I get all that but for more insular communities there will always be an outsider.rick_chasey said:
Lol you're misunderstanding me.surrey_commuter said:
You need to accept that they will always resent the obvious outsider, that could just as easily be somebody from the next village or the person whose family has only lived in the village for two generationsrick_chasey said:
I find it remarkable people think your nationality has some baring on who you are as a person. Why be so preoccupied with what nation someone's from? If they want to be part of a society, why bother stopping them?Dorset_Boy said:
I guess it depends on how attached you are to nationhood.rick_chasey said:
I'm not incredulous.pangolin said:
Surprised you are acting incredulous at this Rick. Obviously it's not a logical position but it's hardly a shock.rick_chasey said:
I know it exists but I can't see the logic in the position. If you believe in the value of labour mobility then what difference does an arbitrary border make?pangolin said:You really can't understand the difference? Surely you can imagine that some might have no issue with British folk moving around the country wherever they please, but not want as many immigrants. You don't have to agree with it obviously.
Honestly, this is probably just the product of being born with two nationalities and having lived in a number of different countries, so the idea that somehow foreigners are different is quite alien to me.
I just don't see the logical consistency between being pro-labour mobility within a border but not across them.
As someone who has dual nationality and has lived in various countries you perhaps have little feeling for nationhood, and that is possibly borne out in some of your views about GB & the UK.
Others will feel strongly about nationhood and would prefer people of their nation to be able to move freely and easily to find work within their nation, ahead of havign people from outside the nation coming in to do said jobs.
It is just a different view, though one that falls down if the 'local' population aren't willing to move, or aren't willing or able to undertake the jobs in a different part of the country.
Honestly, the rules are so arbitrary to determine who is and isn't a certain nationality.
I know that this is a thing. I know it exists.
I am saying there is logical dissonance in the position, unless you think people from other nations are materially different to people from your own nation.
That is what I am trying to tease out of people.
I would counter that argument by suggesting people who are willing to uproot their entire lives to live in a particular society are unlikely to be that different - with some caveats.
I am harsher on migrants who don't want to learn the language than others, but I am much more relaxed about who comes in to live in a society.
You and I don't care but a lot of other people do.
In some parts of Wales they will hate you for being English and if you aren't there they will hate somebody for coming from another part of Wales.
in London people stab each other for having a different post code0 -
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
My point was more that it is more affordable as it is paid for generally by borrowing money when you buy the house. If it was a yearly fee based on an average house move duration and an average stamp duty value then it would not be affordable to a lot even though it is break even for the average person. Move a lot you are quids in. Move once in you life it is a pretty significant tax uplift.surrey_commuter said:
Stamp duty is paid when you buy so your flip side only kicks in when you are moving back down the ladderjohn80 said:I guess on the flip side an equivalent yearly charge would be unaffordable for a lot of people out of their wages versus out of the sale of an asset on a big loan.
0 -
Since the GFC you can not up your mortgage to pay stamp duty, it is coming straight out of your bank account.john80 said:
My point was more that it is more affordable as it is paid for generally by borrowing money when you buy the house. If it was a yearly fee based on an average house move duration and an average stamp duty value then it would not be affordable to a lot even though it is break even for the average person. Move a lot you are quids in. Move once in you life it is a pretty significant tax uplift.surrey_commuter said:
Stamp duty is paid when you buy so your flip side only kicks in when you are moving back down the ladderjohn80 said:I guess on the flip side an equivalent yearly charge would be unaffordable for a lot of people out of their wages versus out of the sale of an asset on a big loan.
There will be winners and losers but taxing people on the value of their property is less unfair than taxing them on buying and selling property.
Paying benefits based upon need rather than how many times you have orbited the sun or number of successful pregnancies also makes sense to me.0 -
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
Nurses is a very bad example as we already recruited them globally. I know this because I count it as an absolute disgrace that we actively recruited trained nurses from poverty stricken countries.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
0 -
I think the NHS did that anyway.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
This is data from June 2020 from .gov.uk
0 -
I've not mentioned xenophobia, to be clear.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
I just want to understand why you believe in restricting migration across borders but not within borders.
The value of labour mobility is the same regardless, and the national boundaries arbitrary, so I'm curious to see how you square that circle.
If you look at our exchange above, I'm clearly trying to see how you put that square peg in a round hole, and you're calling me an absolute muppet.
Maybe there are some assumptions you are working on that I don't see.
0 -
Given the fuss you made about the very idea of moving to somewhere with a better school, you can understand why you being in favour of labour mobility comes as a surprise. 😉john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
What do you see as the difference between moving from, say Carlisle to Bristol for work and moving from Lille or Krakow, given that nationality is just an administrative distinction that can be acquired with essentially some forms and a fee.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You haven't really answered his question though. Why is it alright (or even, to be encouraged) for someone to move from one part of the UK to another to do a job that doesn't meet the points threshold, but not for someone to move from France to the UK to do it.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Does it not make sense to look at your domestic pool of resources before you seek to get someone from abroad to do the same thing. What is the benefit of having a fairly immobile domestic pool of resource competing with a much more mobile foreign worker pool. So you keep barriers to movement high such as stamp duty on houses and then import foreign labour instead. Is that the plan you think is good?pangolin said:
You haven't really answered his question though. Why is it alright (or even, to be encouraged) for someone to move from one part of the UK to another to do a job that doesn't meet the points threshold, but not for someone to move from France to the UK to do it.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
Because that person is already here. To put it bluntly there is not much point in importing another person whilst the equivalent person here remains untrained and immobile. Unless your import can cover their dole payments out of the tax from that individual job then it does not seem like such a winner of a policy for the UK government.pangolin said:
You haven't really answered his question though. Why is it alright (or even, to be encouraged) for someone to move from one part of the UK to another to do a job that doesn't meet the points threshold, but not for someone to move from France to the UK to do it.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
0 -
Do you feel the same about regions?john80 said:
Does it not make sense to look at your domestic pool of resources before you seek to get someone from abroad to do the same thing. What is the benefit of having a fairly immobile domestic pool of resource competing with a much more mobile foreign worker pool. So you keep barriers to movement high such as stamp duty on houses and then import foreign labour instead. Is that the plan you think is good?pangolin said:
You haven't really answered his question though. Why is it alright (or even, to be encouraged) for someone to move from one part of the UK to another to do a job that doesn't meet the points threshold, but not for someone to move from France to the UK to do it.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
Like, for example, do you feel it's unfair that London based firms seems to regularly recruit people from all over the UK rather than trying to hire the local London born and bred people?
Why is the national definition more important to you than any other?
0 -
The very idea that someone will give up being on the dole and move across country for an unskilled job at unskilled wages. Or even the locals... 🤣🤣🤣The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You're adding 1 and 1 and getting 3.john80 said:
Does it not make sense to look at your domestic pool of resources before you seek to get someone from abroad to do the same thing. What is the benefit of having a fairly immobile domestic pool of resource competing with a much more mobile foreign worker pool. So you keep barriers to movement high such as stamp duty on houses and then import foreign labour instead. Is that the plan you think is good?pangolin said:
You haven't really answered his question though. Why is it alright (or even, to be encouraged) for someone to move from one part of the UK to another to do a job that doesn't meet the points threshold, but not for someone to move from France to the UK to do it.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
The issue you are describing there is that our domestic labour is immobile, not that foreign labour is too mobile. The answer to that isn't to restrict foreign labour. I've got no issue at all with getting barriers to moving around within the country low. Get them as low as possible.
And I haven't suggested "getting someone from abroad". But if jobs are available and barriers to moving have been made low for everyone, employers can then hire the best applicant.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Make them mobile. Look at some point our poor local workers have to want to do a job right, so let's assume we are having this discussion on the basis that they want a job and aren't just lazy. Make any barriers to them getting a job as low as possible.john80 said:
Because that person is already here. To put it bluntly there is not much point in importing another person whilst the equivalent person here remains untrained and immobile. Unless your import can cover their dole payments out of the tax from that individual job then it does not seem like such a winner of a policy for the UK government.pangolin said:
You haven't really answered his question though. Why is it alright (or even, to be encouraged) for someone to move from one part of the UK to another to do a job that doesn't meet the points threshold, but not for someone to move from France to the UK to do it.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I know you often claim people are racists when they would actually be xenophobic as I have had to point out the difference to you prior. There is no benefit to having a domestic population much less mobile than their foreign competition. People at the bottom of the wage scale are competing often with nationals that will live in a rented shared house that does not meet a number of UK standards and work in the UK for short periods of time then take that money back to a cheaper country to then live a reasonable quality of life. If you are in a minimum wage job that is your competition. A fact not grasped by many politicians. Maybe when you can explain why young Brits don't do the reverse in say Poland you will understand the single direction trait of the problem.rick_chasey said:
I've not mentioned xenophobia, to be clear.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
I just want to understand why you believe in restricting migration across borders but not within borders.
The value of labour mobility is the same regardless, and the national boundaries arbitrary, so I'm curious to see how you square that circle.
If you look at our exchange above, I'm clearly trying to see how you put that square peg in a round hole, and you're calling me an absolute muppet.
Maybe there are some assumptions you are working on that I don't see.
So back to stamp duty and an economy where if you want to retire you had probably best own your own house. This is a drag on labour mobility. So either you reduce the hurdle or put some hurdles in the way of the foreign competition to make it fair.0 -
This isn't true. The Phillipines had a whole industry in training nurses, exporting them and then receiving repatriations. When the EU harmonised all medical qualifications, it made EU nurses far easier to hire as the non-EU ones had to sit an exam to ensure standards. As a result, there were too many nurses in the Philippines. This in turn annoyed many of the current nurses with a Filipino background - a high percentage of which then voted for Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
Nurses is a very bad example as we already recruited them globally. I know this because I count it as an absolute disgrace that we actively recruited trained nurses from poverty stricken countries.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.0 -
I posted some data above regarding exactly where we get our NHS staff from. India and Philippines are number 1 and 2 (if you don't count the UK).TheBigBean said:
This isn't true. The Phillipines had a whole industry in training nurses, exporting them and then receiving repatriations. When the EU harmonised all medical qualifications, it made EU nurses far easier to hire as the non-EU ones had to sit an exam to ensure standards. As a result, there were too many nurses in the Philippines. This in turn annoyed many of the current nurses with a Filipino background - a high percentage of which then voted for Brexit.surrey_commuter said:
Nurses is a very bad example as we already recruited them globally. I know this because I count it as an absolute disgrace that we actively recruited trained nurses from poverty stricken countries.john80 said:
Your point scoring knows no bounds. I am in favour of a skills based immigration system that takes a worldwide view and is equitable. Need nurses then go and seek them out and get the best English speaking applicant you can. This was not compatible with EU membership or the wishes of a significant proportion of UK voters. It is not that hard for you to grasp surely. Not everyone who wants an equitable immigration policy is a racist or a xenophobe contrary to your continual assertions to the contrary.rick_chasey said:
Right. Can you not see why there is cognitive dissonance there?john80 said:
Yeah and people moving to one part of the UK to another affects our immigration stats. Absolute Muppet.rick_chasey said:
Someone will correct me but you’ve consistently used reducing immigration as a justification for Brexit so forgive me for thinking that what you thought.john80 said:
Unfortunately I am not as one dimensional as you like to make out. Its a shame when people mess up your stereotypes.rick_chasey said:
Eh ? I thought you were anti migrant?john80 said:
It certainly reduces labour mobility. This in my view is a bad thing.surrey_commuter said:
Nope I am arguing that stamp duty distorts the property market. Taxing people on how often they move is madness compared to a fixed annual sum.rjsterry said:
Wait, what? You, of all people on here, are advocating central control of property values?surrey_commuter said:
My suggestion so it hit a knee jerk rejection in some quarters.rick_chasey said:
Didn’t this very thread declare this unworkable?
It would be less market distorting.
There are problems with implementation but the biggest problem is that the losers will shout ten times louder than the gainers.
It does also show that John80's point that EU membership stopped us recruiting the best candidates from outside of the block was not true.0
