|
I am guessing that is on top of the requirement to show you have enough money to support yourself if you don't have a job for X amount of time? I could make a flippant comment about how they should just come in and claim asylum as that seems to work for others without the need to pay anything but you know, flippant.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:51 |
|
BigPaddy posted:I am guessing that is on top of the requirement to show you have enough money to support yourself if you don't have a job for X amount of time? I could make a flippant comment about how they should just come in and claim asylum as that seems to work for others without the need to pay anything but you know, flippant. Yep, of course, you need to show you consistently have a grand in the bank to be allowed in too or have someone willing to foot the bills for you for the first month.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you have a house that you're planning to sell without moving, who would want house prices to be high? It's a bubble economy. In a bubble economy everyone wants to be the last one out before the burst, because that's where the maximum profit lies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's a bubble economy. In a bubble economy everyone wants to be the last one out before the burst, because that's where the maximum profit lies. So the entire thing is people wanting to sell their house, wait until next week, then buy it back for a tenth of the price?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
It just couldn't be more obvious to me that the government is trying progressively hard to find ways to browbeat immigrants with additional charges and fees in the hope it'll be a discouragement.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you have a house that you're planning to sell without moving, who would want house prices to be high? I'll give you a hint, who usually benefits when something becomes a major issue despite offering normal people almost no tangible benefit? It's the banks (Larger and longer mortgage payments means more Interest money for the bank) and people rich enough to own multiple properties of course
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So the entire thing is people wanting to sell their house, wait until next week, then buy it back for a tenth of the price? Only the ones trying to make a profit by selling. The rest of the desire for increasing prices comes from landlords who can buy cheap then rent at the market rate - if they can buy a house on £500 a month payments and the value rises so a mortgage is £600 a month, they can still charge rent as if they were paying the more expensive mortgage because other landlords can't undercut them without making a loss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I already live here, I just interact with people at work who are moving their families to the UK, and for them not moving them is not an option. I don't know who they are or what they do, but I sincerely doubt that there are no other options than moving their families here. The other options might not be so appealing, but they still exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Fans posted:I'll give you a hint, who usually benefits when something becomes a major issue despite offering normal people almost no tangible benefit? Well yeah obviously I get why rich fuckers want it but I don't get why anyone else would support it. It doesn't seem like something you'd want to advertise because while the few able to profit from it would like it, surely everyone else would hate it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:20
|
|
tentish klown posted:I don't know who they are or what they do, but I sincerely doubt that there are no other options than moving their families here. The other options might not be so appealing, but they still exist. Kindly get hosed.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yeah obviously I get why rich fuckers want it but I don't get why anyone else would support it. Same reason they'd support austerity cuts to "Balance the budget". Rich people ain't above just flat out giving bad economical arguments to line their own pockets. "If housing prices drop you could lose thousands of pounds from the value of your property. Don't lose thousands of pounds, support us in keeping housing prices high!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Kindly get hosed. 'I don't like the other options so I'm going to pretend they don't exist'
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you have a house that you're planning to sell without moving, who would want house prices to be high? A collapse in the value of your house could be a problem if you have a large mortgage though - you still have to pay back that mortgage, but now your house is worth less so you have less money to pay it off with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Fans posted:Same reason they'd support austerity cuts to "Balance the budget". Rich people ain't above just flat out giving bad economical arguments to line their own pockets. Urgh, you're right, of course. It just annoys me that that actually works. Whitefish posted:A collapse in the value of your house could be a problem if you have a large mortgage though - you still have to pay back that mortgage, but now your house is worth less so you have less money to pay it off with. Why would you have less money unless you're planning on selling the house? You don't make money off your house, generally, so you should have the same amount of income as before? Unless you work in property and got fired because the market collapsed or something. I guess it's not ideal because it means you're stuck where you are for a while, but even then, high prices are just going to prolong that risk, would you really want the prices to go even higher and mortgages to get even riskier because you were a dumbass who bought a house on a massive mortgage in an unstable market? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yeah obviously I get why rich fuckers want it but I don't get why anyone else would support it. Once you've bought, rising prices are advantageous to you in a few ways. First, they ensure you won't end up trapped in negative equity where the balance outstanding on your mortgage is greater than the value of the house. Second, they increase your equity and thus allow you to remortgage on more favourable terms than would otherwise be possible. Third, they give you greater profits if you eventually decide to downsize into a smaller home. Really, once you've bought a place, the only immediate downside to rising prices is that it makes buying a bigger home more expensive (assuming we don't care about knock-on social/economic effects arising from people being priced out of the market, that is).
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:He announced some time last year that he'd be retiring to the back benches in the next Parliament. I doubt that's entirely due to political conviction, though. The historical child abuse investigation is starting to stray way too close to him, and having a currently-serving Cabinet minister get caught up in that could... well, I'm not sure there are words to describe it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I just had my first brush with the charming new charge the government added to foreign visa applications on the 6th of this month. If you apply to live or work here you now have to pay £200 a year for each year you're living in the UK to pay for the NHS. So for for you, your wife and 2 kids to move to the UK to work for five years that's a £4k up front tax to enter the UK, whether you're working for a living and already paying tax or not! Not to mention that a five year work visa application already costs £1000 a person! It's terrible, and the application fees themselves keep rising too. One thing that surprises me is how little this has been mentioned in the media. I'd have thought the Tories would be celebrating this policy in order to make themselves look tough on health tourism. But apparently not. edit: it also annoys me how they keep making the application forms bigger and longer. no other reason than to make it as inconvenient and confusing as possible Not a Twat fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why would you have less money unless you're planning on selling the house? You don't make money off your house, generally, so you should have the same amount of income as before? Unless you work in property and got fired because the market collapsed or something. It's a bit like how people prefer that their wages go up even if everything else goes up in price the same than they would that their wages stay the same and everything get cheaper, but with the added complication that people often borrow against their houses. Whoever has a mortgage when the bubble pops is going to be the one left holding the bag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:'I don't like the other options so I'm going to pretend they don't exist' is your point that nothing the government does should every be subject to criticism? if not i don't know what you're trying to say. he's described the new system and made the not entirely uncontriversial point that it is totally unfair and punative.all you've added is a pedandtic point that doesn't change the facts of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:He announced some time last year that he'd be retiring to the back benches in the next Parliament. oh I missed that. still an interesting article though. looking forward to the full interview.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Fun bit of local news for UKMT: Portsmouth South incumbent Mike Hancock (in office since 1997), having been ejected from the Lib Dems after admitting to sexual harassment of a vulnerable constituent, is standing for re-election as an independent. In unrelated news, MPs who contest their seat and lose are entitled to a Loss of Office payment equivalent to about £14,000 for every decade served. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I don't know who they are or what they do, but I sincerely doubt that there are no other options than moving their families here. The other options might not be so appealing, but they still exist. tory.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:'I don't like the other options so I'm going to pretend they don't exist' Weren't you whining about how much tax you pay? Why don't you just move to another country
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Weren't you whining about how much tax you pay? Why don't you just move to another country I've considered it. Currently I'd rather stay here and bitch about the tax rate than move, but that may change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I've considered it. Currently I'd rather stay here and bitch about the tax rate than move, but that may change. There aren't many developed countries where you'll pay appreciably lower rates tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:In unrelated news, MPs who contest their seat and lose are entitled to a Loss of Office payment equivalent to about £14,000 for every decade served. I'm sure you're saving a bullet for me anyway, but I feel the need to defend this, at least in principle. This is compensation for the fact they will have put their normal career on hold to enter a position with no job security for the sake of public service. The payment allows them to find their feet again and resume a normal career. Similar to women returning from a period of maternity and child rearing, they will often be re-entering their industries at a disadvantageous age. I get that it's silly if you have a "line my pocketsss" MP who will be independently wealthy, but there are some decent MPs who don't do this. £1.4k a year to help you readjust into a normal career doesn't seem outrageous. Soldiers get a £12k resettlement grant for example after 12 years of service, so £1k/year. (I realise the two careers aren't directly comparable). You can picture an MP from a working class background, with a mortgage to pay, who hasn't lined their pockets or got a cosy non-exec director position lined up. After two terms, he suddenly gets ousted in the election and, just like that, is unemployed at the age of 40. He was working in IT, but that was 10 years ago. Apparently there's this thing called the cloud now? I'd be happy to means test it, but I'm of the opinion that we've created quite a hostile environment that's made it more difficult to attract the type of MPs we want (i.e. working class backgrounds) and allowances like this will be a genuine help/comfort to MPs that aren't independently wealthy. Prince John fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I've considered it. Currently I'd rather stay here and bitch about the tax rate than move, but that may change. Well you've made this decision so clearly you have no right to complain about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:01
|
|
Not a Twat posted:It's terrible, and the application fees themselves keep rising too. One thing that surprises me is how little this has been mentioned in the media. I'd have thought the Tories would be celebrating this policy in order to make themselves look tough on health tourism. But apparently not. As it happens some people perceive the timing of these new fines to be politically motivated so the tories can campaign to right wingers that they're making immigrants pay their way in are country.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I'm sure you're saving a bullet for me anyway, but I feel the need to defend this, at least in principle. Though yes the principle is sound in the sense that it will benefit less wealthy MPs more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
^ The dude posting it said 14k a decade, not a year. I can see both sides of this, which is why I tend not to bitch about MPs pay and such. My bf worked for an MSP who later lost his seat, and the best job he could get lugging boxes around a warehouse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I'd be happy to means test it, but I'm of the opinion that we've created quite a hostile environment that's made it more difficult to attract the type of MPs we want (i.e. working class backgrounds) and allowances like this will be a genuine help/comfort to MPs that aren't independently wealthy. Maybe we should just have a welfare system that is there to actually assist the unemployed, regardless of their background?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Acaila posted:^ The dude posting it said 14k a decade, not a year. Me am literate good. In that case yes it's quite reasonable really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Well you've made this decision so clearly you have no right to complain about it Cool thanks for your opinion. I mentioned once that I thought my marginal rate was 'far too high' and suddenly I'm 'whining' and 'complaining'. What exactly does this have to do with the government charging people upfront for possible NHS use? Or are personal attacks fine and dandy now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Maybe we should just have a welfare system that is there to actually assist the unemployed, regardless of their background? I don't disagree with this, but while we wait the years (decades?) for this to happen, it doesn't seem like an outrageous policy. Also, a welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, not necessarily something that could maintain the mortgage on a family home for example. Assuming that people still think of 'public service' as a laudable goal in itself, I think additional help to those choosing to put their life on hold for the sake of the nation is reasonable, in the same way I would support it for ex-servicemen. (Sorry, I know that sounds really hokey, but I'm not really sure how to make the argument without falling into that trap!) Prince John fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I don't disagree with this, but while we wait the year (decades?) for this to happen, it doesn't seem like an outrageous policy. It's hokey but if more MPs believed that that was the nature of their job, we might have better MPs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:Cool thanks for your opinion. I mentioned once that I thought my marginal rate was 'far too high' and suddenly I'm 'whining' and 'complaining'. Welcome to new D&D, where if you don't think the same as the majority of the thread you're a horrible person and deserve death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:14
|
|
tentish klown posted:What exactly does this have to do with the government charging people upfront for possible NHS use? Or are personal attacks fine and dandy now? By 'people' here, you of course include people who will be paying all the same taxes that everyone else pays, but nonetheless have to pay a surcharge.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I've considered it. Currently I'd rather stay here and bitch about the tax rate than move, but that may change. We're so frightened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I'm sure you're saving a bullet for me anyway, but I feel the need to defend this, at least in principle. You think too little of me! It's not so much an opposition to the principle of public servants being paid (although they should be paid a lot less in general; more in line with the UK average wage, perhaps). My post is highlighting the specific case of this shameless bastard not resigning his seat in disgrace to begin with. Also, I always enjoy your posts, as you seem very well informed and I feel like I learn something - even if conclusions drawn may differ, it's always healthy to talk with people who hold different views.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:By 'people' here, you of course include people who will be paying all the same taxes that everyone else pays, but nonetheless have to pay a surcharge. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/migrant-health-surcharge-to-raise-200-million-a-year quote:In England alone, use of the NHS by overseas visitors and migrants is estimated to cost up to £2 billion a year – with £950 million of this being spent on temporary, non-EEA workers and students.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 16:21
|
|