Lords lay into the governments illegal migration bill

Interestingly, the source of the information in the wiki link is protected and not available to be viewed. You may trust wiki, I don’t - but it shows us a fair way down the list.

You’re really not coming up with where all the money we allegedly have to fix the problems might have gone, are you volver? PPE as I said you’d include, people indulging in lawful tax avoidance (ergo ‘we’ never had their tax in the first place), BJ’s legal bills (which wouldn’t build much housing) - I call that clutching at straws. Just admit that we don’t have the money and you don’t have the answer.

There speaks the voice of a Tory.

The money hasn't "gone" anywhere. We, as a county, have decided that we don't need to have money that we could have realised via taxes, or printing money, or whatever it is we do... I have said many times that I am not an economist, but I do understand morality and standards. We allow "tax avoidance" because happy Glesca' bra billionaires take higher priority than children being fed.

We are awash with money.

As for "trusting" Wiki, I do have enough sense to understand what is valid information and what isn't. Just saying "I don't trust Wiki" when you want to undermine IMF figures is very naïve.

Oh, and that data you said couldn't be accessed from the Wiki page? It could. Here it is.

www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/April/weo-report?c=512,914,612,171,614,311,213,911,314,193,122,912,313,419,513,316,913,124,339,638,514,218,963,616,223,516,918,748,618,624,522,622,156,626,628,228,924,233,632,636,634,238,662,960,423,935,128,611,321,243,248,469,253,642,643,939,734,644,819,172,132,646,648,915,134,652,174,328,258,656,654,336,263,268,532,944,176,534,536,429,433,178,436,136,343,158,439,916,664,826,542,967,443,917,544,941,446,666,668,672,946,137,546,674,676,548,556,678,181,867,682,684,273,868,921,948,943,686,688,518,728,836,558,138,196,278,692,694,962,142,449,564,565,283,853,288,293,566,964,182,359,453,968,922,714,862,135,716,456,722,942,718,724,576,936,961,813,726,199,733,184,524,361,362,364,732,366,144,146,463,528,923,738,578,537,742,866,369,744,186,925,869,746,926,466,112,111,298,927,846,299,582,487,474,754,698,&s=NGDPDPC,&sy=2021&ey=2028&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1

www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD?year=2023

data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true

Why don't we have enough money to house and look after our own?

You’ll have to hope volver answers that one.

volver, tax avoidance schemes are available to all of us. They are not the sole preserve of the mega rich. The basic personal allowance is tax avoidance which the government allows us every financial year.

I do know what tax avoidance is, even though I'm not a fancy-schmancy lawyer. I'm sure that £12k allowance is a key part of Rees-Mogg's tax planning.

I won't be answering Greta's question as I do think we could do that. It's you that doesn't. Maybe then, you could answer her.

I don’t think we have the money, it’s you who believes that. I expect if I had JRM’s money I would take advice on legitimate tax avoidance - I think he’s pretty rich or perhaps he just likes to give that impression. I have never indulged in tax avoidance schemes but if we care for our families we probably all do what we can to limit the inheritance tax payable when we die.

As I said above...

There speaks the voice of a tory.

Taxes baaad! Best hitch up that ladder behind you. You don't want the hoi polloi having what you have.

FFS - how many of us willingly pays more tax than they are obliged to? But indeed, I don’t want my estate to attract greater IHT than it has to. Any lawyer will advise on that when preparing your will if your estate is likely to exceed the IHT threshold, but I expect you’d say Och no, leave it for the government to spend on their project du jour. And my will includes significant charitable legacies - a good way of directing money as you would wish and saving IHT, though the charitable legacies would be there regardless of IHT benefit as they are charities I support in life anyway.

So far V3 you are making the Conservative Party look quite efficient in its handling of migration even though current trends indicate net migration between 650k and nearly a million. How amazing is that? All these extra people…. So much for controlling numbers.
Or perhaps a million isn’t enough for you?

Well hello Lady Bountiful.

I have news.

The level of inheritance tax is not a physical constant of the universe and can be varied by the government. Imagine.

I’ve always said that I’d happily pay more tax if it meant that I lived in a country where everyone had access to a good education and good health and social care. Because if we all lived in a fair, caring society we wouldn’t need to be super rich to lead a good life.

What is the legal route for a Sudanese medic who has worked in the NHS for years, all through the pandemic, and couldn’t make it to the evacuation flights because of the snipers.

I’m back! Had a lovely brunch looking at a lovely sea view with the family.
Okay, so you’ve chosen a strange example to present to me volver. The Sudanese medic has obviously got the right to live and work in Britain and consequently has no need to pay a smuggler four or five thousand pounds in order to come into Britain. Presumably the said medic had been home to celebrate Eid with his/her family (as many did) and now finds it difficult to return, but has the right to return to continue working in the NHS. This is a problem that no one can solve, the British or the smugglers, until it becomes safe enough for the medic to make his/her way to an airport and fly back to Britain.

You called me Lady Bountiful once before volver. You apologised then and I would like you to do so again please. That’s a nasty sneer and totally uncalled for. I don’t boast about giving money to charity, as many of us do - you don’t know how much or to which charities, nor will you or anyone else who doesn’t need to.

Of course IHT rules can change - and if you’re affected by that and are able to mitigate the effect then you revise your will accordingly, or in England and Wales your will may be varied after your death. I know nothing of Scottish law.

HousePlantQueen

I often wonder how many of the 'look after our own people first' group (not necessarily on GN) do actually do so?

I am sure many of us do. I, for example, look after my immediate family first. I am in touch with nieces and nephews who live fairly locally and I help them by occasional babysitting, supporting one after a very serious RTA in which she nearly died. We have a near neighbour who comes round for a meal every couple of weeks as he lives alone and has little family.

Then I spread myself a bit wider and do some voluntary work. I lost my sister in law in 2020 to breast cancer and I raise money for her chosen charity.

If I have any time or money over I then help where I can locally. That takes all my budget and I can sleep at night knowing I have done my best for those I love and care about.

Greta

Why don't we have enough money to house and look after our own?

Because the tories don't want to spend the money. It is ideological. Remember Thatcher with her target of a 'small state', i.e the minimum possible spent on public services and selling off all nationalised industries? The Blair government reversed that to a certain extent, with investment in education and the NHS, but the global financial crisis and the subsequent recession (which we were actually recovering from) gave Osborne a chance to carry on with Thatcher's destruction of state services. And the tories have been doing it ever since.

It's nothing to do with not enough money, the government discovered that it can create money fast enough when the pound tumbled after the Brexit vote and during the pandemic. They did, though, make sure that much of the money they created went in the right direction.. friends and donors.. Baroness Mone's yacht...

Germanshepherdsmum

You called me Lady Bountiful once before volver. You apologised then and I would like you to do so again please. That’s a nasty sneer and totally uncalled for. I don’t boast about giving money to charity, as many of us do - you don’t know how much or to which charities, nor will you or anyone else who doesn’t need to.

Of course IHT rules can change - and if you’re affected by that and are able to mitigate the effect then you revise your will accordingly, or in England and Wales your will may be varied after your death. I know nothing of Scottish law.

I apologise.

Since “I apologise” followed by “but” isn’t a real apology, I won’t say that.

While we’re talking about nasty sneers, what do you class this as: I expect you’d say Och no, leave it for the government to spend on their project du jour. Making fun of a person’s preference for governmental projects above charity? “Sneery”, I’d say.

Also, the assertion that I don’t boast about giving money to charity. When your previous post said something like: my will includes significant charitable legacies.

It seems to me GSM that you have no idea how you sound, or you just don't care. A lady with “significant” amounts of money who gives to charity and wants her immediate descendants to inherit the “significant” amount, but who doesn’t believe in higher taxes or schemes to benefit anybody except the people she chooses. And no, we don’t all think that way, before you say that. Some of us want all of society to benefit from our good fortune.

maddyone

^What is the legal route for a Sudanese medic who has worked in the NHS for years, all through the pandemic, and couldn’t make it to the evacuation flights because of the snipers.^

I’m back! Had a lovely brunch looking at a lovely sea view with the family.
Okay, so you’ve chosen a strange example to present to me volver. The Sudanese medic has obviously got the right to live and work in Britain and consequently has no need to pay a smuggler four or five thousand pounds in order to come into Britain. Presumably the said medic had been home to celebrate Eid with his/her family (as many did) and now finds it difficult to return, but has the right to return to continue working in the NHS. This is a problem that no one can solve, the British or the smugglers, until it becomes safe enough for the medic to make his/her way to an airport and fly back to Britain.

I'm glad you enjoyed your lunch maddyone.

What a nice, straightforward little world you seem to think we all live in. If only it were that simple.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/65411589

volver3 your comments on this thread alongside those of MaizieD are like a comedy double act.😂
One thinks only they know how to solve the problem ( no, you sure don’t) and the other thinks printing money is the answer to everything ( no, it isn’t.)

One thinks only they know how to solve the problem

I think you'll find many people agree with me. But anyway...

What would you do then Oreo?

The rules: nothing illegal, nothing that would make people suicidal, nothing discriminatory.

Unless you are an undercover version of Suella of course. Then you could be as wicked as you like.

I think you’ll find that many people don’t agree with you but that’s neither here nor there as you can’t do a relevant opinion poll.
I wouldn’t believe that I have the answers volver3 unlike you who obvs does believe they do.😄
I doubt the problem of stopping the small boats can be done without something more drastic than has been tried before tho.
This is what Australia did, and it worked.Otherwise it will continue forever.

Well said Oreo.
Frankly, what is the point of continuing this discussion?
I am obliged for your apology volver. Yes, I want my child and grandchild to benefit from what I have worked for all my life. I have paid my taxes and continue to do so and when I could afford it I have donated to charities of my choice. I have by no means always been well off. What I have is the result of hard graft. I consider I am entitled to dispose of what I have as I choose, taxes paid. I expect you consider likewise.

Oreo

I think you’ll find that many people don’t agree with you but that’s neither here nor there as you can’t do a relevant opinion poll.
I wouldn’t believe that I have the answers volver3 unlike you who obvs does believe they do.😄
I doubt the problem of stopping the small boats can be done without something more drastic than has been tried before tho.
This is what Australia did, and it worked.Otherwise it will continue forever.

I used to live in Australia.

People subject to their rules, including children on Nauru, went mad, committed suicide. The Australian government's scheme was criticised by the UNHCR as causing deaths and harm to innocent men, women and children.

We could try that I suppose. Funny sort of objective to have, but it is the current crop of Tories in charge, I suppose. I can believe anything of them, really.

Germanshepherdsmum

FFS - how many of us willingly pays more tax than they are obliged to? But indeed, I don’t want my estate to attract greater IHT than it has to. Any lawyer will advise on that when preparing your will if your estate is likely to exceed the IHT threshold, but I expect you’d say Och no, leave it for the government to spend on their project du jour. And my will includes significant charitable legacies - a good way of directing money as you would wish and saving IHT, though the charitable legacies would be there regardless of IHT benefit as they are charities I support in life anyway.

Not everyone does. I suggested to a client that he should think inheritance tax and his response was that he'd provided each of his children with a deposit for a house and that was enough.

He's since become a grandfather and has started small savings schemes for his GCs but that's it.

volver3 Why do I have the feeling that if I’d said the Arctic instead of Australia you’d have said you’d lived there and knew all about it.😄
Reminds me of that song ‘I’ve Been Everywhere’
Whichever political party manages to stop the boats arriving almost daily will be the one with the keys to number ten.