Is there a horrifying link between planned pension cut and immigration ban?
Priti Patel: Her plan to end freedom of movement into the UK for EU citizens means a huge cut in tax income. Is this why the Tories are planning to shrink state spending by restricting pensions even further?
I know it seems a strange thought, but Priti Patel’s plan to end freedom of movement, cutting the flow of EU citizens into the UK despite the obvious economic benefit they provide, could have a more sinister knock-on effect.
You see, migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult, the analysis for the government has found.
And, over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits – while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.
In the numbers that Ms Patel is planning to ban, that represents a huge cut to the Treasury’s income every year – combined with the cut to the economy caused by the fact that nobody in the UK would be able to take on the work that these people do – they don’t have the expertise.
And the super-rich won’t subsidise the difference because they have been enjoying tax cuts.
Is this the real reason Iain Duncan Smith wants to raise the age at which people qualify for the state pension, beyond many people’s life expectancy – to ensure that they don’t get money the government will no longer have?
Free movement for EU citizens will end on day one of a no-deal Brexit, under new Home Office plans – despite warnings of chaos and of people trapped in legal limbo.
Priti Patel, the new hardline home secretary, is pressing for border restrictions to be imposed immediately on 31 October, even though no replacement system is ready.
Previously, ministers had intended to delay scrapping free movement until new rules are in place, with a bill stuck in the Commons and fierce rows over what those rules should be.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
If they continue to take National Insurance and then dey us benefits and pensions are they taking our money out of false pretences? I think Government should be compelled to give us a breakdown annually as to where our money is being spent and how it is used. They do it with our council tax bills. So it can’t be beyond the wit of man to do it. I’m not talking about every last penny but a reasonable overview that can be challenged. It can’t cost as much as 10 DUP seats! Too simplify it, one at the start of a parliament and one at the end, with ministers held accountable.
Could also be to force unemployed to take low paid jobs currently done by immigrants
Gawd… learn some economics MIke https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lee-carnihan/tax-and-spend_b_17452090.html
What – that the government creates its own money and spends it into the economy, and taxation only happens to give it validity?
I’m sure that will be a great comfort to all the would-have-been pensioners who will lose their right to it until the age of 75 because the Tories say the size of the fund isn’t big enough because not enough people have been paying into it.
I’m not the one who needs to learn economics. Perhaps you need to learn about Conservatives?
quote:- “while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.”………… why is it zero? doesnt national insurance stamps we all pay when working,and the taxes we all pay either on our income or VAT as well as other taxes we pay, when we worked or while we are working which most have done most of their lives ,count????
Every adult of every age, including pensioners, UK citizen or migrant, contributes to public services just the same, from the 75 per cent of all tax from people to government that comes from stealth taxes on money spent, even on the most basic survival bills. For example, energy prices are made up of 50 per cent in taxes.
Indirect taxes bring in 3 times more than any other tax from people to government.
The increase of pension age from 67 to 70 going on 75 to men and women born 1961 to 1978, is because the Tories (and Lib Dems) have been working hard since 1980 to end the state pension for us all.
This is a further policy, because House of Lords report 2019 informed the Tories intend to fully thieve the currently ring fenced National Insurance Fund, by merging it inside income tax, so able to completely spend it away on anything but the state pension. Proven by same report informing the end of the triple lock guaranteed annual rise.
Grey Swans pension activist group into Labour’s election manifesto, demands pension age 60 for the 1960s and 1970s born onwards, men and women the same, pledged now in writing in Labour’s election manifesto.