Technology4 mins ago
have I read this right?
I read in the papers today, and heard on the radio, that child benefit is being paid (or at least claimed) to foreign workers in this country, when the children (if they actually exist) are back in their homeland. The figure I read is there are some 50,000 claims in the pipeline. any thoughts on this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by airesgal. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The tax we pay goes to all sorts of payments for health, public services, benefits of all types including unemployment benefit etc (and my husband has never been out of work, so I could argue that us paying tax which goes towards unemployment benefit is unfair) education the list is endless. My children are home educated and I get no grant or help toward teaching them myself, but i still pay 40%tax some of which goes on education so could complain that this is unfair too. No tax payer uses all of the services their tax actually pays for.
However, I've not seen the report airesgal is referring to, but if it is true and foriegn workers are claiming child benefit for offshore children then I think that is somewhat insane. The children presumably live offshore with their other parent who is living under the government of her mother country. However, I would strongly question as to whether even our government would give benefits to people not even living in this country. When you fill in the claim you have to say where the children live and provide birth certificates etc so I think this is probably another misrepresentation. Just because there are 50000claims, doesn't mean they will be accepted. I hope!
However, I've not seen the report airesgal is referring to, but if it is true and foriegn workers are claiming child benefit for offshore children then I think that is somewhat insane. The children presumably live offshore with their other parent who is living under the government of her mother country. However, I would strongly question as to whether even our government would give benefits to people not even living in this country. When you fill in the claim you have to say where the children live and provide birth certificates etc so I think this is probably another misrepresentation. Just because there are 50000claims, doesn't mean they will be accepted. I hope!
Britain - soft touch of Europe!!!!
We joined the common market, now called the 'EU'. This allows citizens of member states the right to work in any of the other member states. If someone is working here they are paying (supposedly) our level of taxation so they are thus entitled to apply for our benefits. Whether they get granted payment or not is down to the liberal minded giveaway merchants with weak chins and weaker resolve in the government offices that pass the paperwork. We have a diabolical record on getting shot of the hangers on and those whom have nothing to add to our economy and are just here to milk the system for all they can. Where else in the world can a convicted paedophile, rapsit and aids carrier get a huge payout from the courts because he got caught commiting a crime and was going to be sent back to his home country, where punishment is severe. The poor soul was going to have his human rights violated - but there was no mention of the rights of the child he raped and condemned to death by aids!
AND BEFORE YOU THINK THIS IS A XENOPHOBIC OR RASCIST COMMENT PLEASE NOTE - I AM HAPPY AND CONTENT IN A MIXED RACE MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!
This has nothing to do with colour or creed and everything to do with lax immigration control and an unwillingness to repatriate economic migrants from outside the EU.
We joined the common market, now called the 'EU'. This allows citizens of member states the right to work in any of the other member states. If someone is working here they are paying (supposedly) our level of taxation so they are thus entitled to apply for our benefits. Whether they get granted payment or not is down to the liberal minded giveaway merchants with weak chins and weaker resolve in the government offices that pass the paperwork. We have a diabolical record on getting shot of the hangers on and those whom have nothing to add to our economy and are just here to milk the system for all they can. Where else in the world can a convicted paedophile, rapsit and aids carrier get a huge payout from the courts because he got caught commiting a crime and was going to be sent back to his home country, where punishment is severe. The poor soul was going to have his human rights violated - but there was no mention of the rights of the child he raped and condemned to death by aids!
AND BEFORE YOU THINK THIS IS A XENOPHOBIC OR RASCIST COMMENT PLEASE NOTE - I AM HAPPY AND CONTENT IN A MIXED RACE MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!
This has nothing to do with colour or creed and everything to do with lax immigration control and an unwillingness to repatriate economic migrants from outside the EU.
Whenever my dad bangs on about ''paying for other peoples kids'' I remind him that people paid into the pot to help his...
With regards to the question, I read that there is a loophole in the law which has allowed this to happen. Apparently someone is trying to rush through some legislation to stop it. Hmmmmm.
With regards to the question, I read that there is a loophole in the law which has allowed this to happen. Apparently someone is trying to rush through some legislation to stop it. Hmmmmm.
As I said on the previous question regarding this, this benefit is being paid at �900 for first child, �600 for subsequent. If it has to be paid at all it should be on a pro rata basis as �900 in Britain is less than 1 months average wage, whereas in Poland where most appears to be claimed the �900 must equate to many months wages.
As for these children contributing to my future pension I very much doubt that the Polish government will send any tax back to this country. So unless these children join the immigration to Britain and put more Britains out of work no they will not contribute anything.
Some of these 'caring' parents have dumped their children in orphanages to come to Britain to cliam this benefit whilst working here.
As for these children contributing to my future pension I very much doubt that the Polish government will send any tax back to this country. So unless these children join the immigration to Britain and put more Britains out of work no they will not contribute anything.
Some of these 'caring' parents have dumped their children in orphanages to come to Britain to cliam this benefit whilst working here.
My views on this were well aired in the earlier question to which IggyB has kindly referred us all.
However, I must comment on the logic adopted by pippa and mimififi.
Yes, we do all pay into various pots and we don�t all draw out sums equivalent to those we pay in. That�s the nature of the economy in which we live. However, there is a subtle difference with what is happening here, so let me try to explain.
We all pay into a pot to maintain a fire brigade. Fortunately only a very few of us need their services during our lives. But of course we never know who is going to need them next, and that is why we don�t mind paying.
However, I would be rather miffed if I thought that my local fire engine was called upon to dash out to Warsaw to extinguish their town hall. A silly argument, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
However, I must comment on the logic adopted by pippa and mimififi.
Yes, we do all pay into various pots and we don�t all draw out sums equivalent to those we pay in. That�s the nature of the economy in which we live. However, there is a subtle difference with what is happening here, so let me try to explain.
We all pay into a pot to maintain a fire brigade. Fortunately only a very few of us need their services during our lives. But of course we never know who is going to need them next, and that is why we don�t mind paying.
However, I would be rather miffed if I thought that my local fire engine was called upon to dash out to Warsaw to extinguish their town hall. A silly argument, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
How about this then?
I know for certain that some British wives of American servicemen are claiming child benefit and child tax credit.
There is a contraversial question on the application form which asks what is the father's address to which they answer by giving the husband's address held by the forces which was their home address when they enlisted, making it appear that they are abandoned wives and dependents.
I know for certain that some British wives of American servicemen are claiming child benefit and child tax credit.
There is a contraversial question on the application form which asks what is the father's address to which they answer by giving the husband's address held by the forces which was their home address when they enlisted, making it appear that they are abandoned wives and dependents.
Not at all, vic. You have missed the basis of my argument and I apologise if I did not make it clear.
Most people who pay their �dues� in this country pay them on the understanding that the funds will be used for the benefit of those in this country. This is especially so when they are constantly told that funds for essentials such as health and education are under pressure.
They appreciate that some will get out more than they pay in, and vice-versa. You can liken it to a policy of motor insurance. If I buy a policy from Bestcover I know that, with luck, I may not make a claim upon the pot. My premium will help pay those unfortunate Bestcover policyholders unlucky enough to have a shunt or have their cars stolen. I don�t expect to have my premium refunded at the end of the year if I don�t make a claim. Who knows, next year it may be my turn to call upon the pot.
However, what I don�t expect is for Bestcover to start paying out to policyholders of Worstquote just because Bestcover got the wording wrong in their policy documents. I expect them to pay out only the sums they are liable for (on behalf of their policy holders) and not to squander it on others who have paid them no premiums.
The expansion of the European Community and the extensions of the �rights� of people in other countries (Worstquote) to have access to the premiums paid in by people in this country (Bestcover) means that their premiums are being misappropriated without their agreement.
I know you can extend this argument to encompass people born and bred in this country who never have and never will pay any premiums (and I will if you want to, another day) but that is different to the argument posed by this question.
If people feel the need to contribute funds to others in countries �less fortunate� that is their privilege. There are plenty of charities to help them achieve this. It should not be compulsory
Most people who pay their �dues� in this country pay them on the understanding that the funds will be used for the benefit of those in this country. This is especially so when they are constantly told that funds for essentials such as health and education are under pressure.
They appreciate that some will get out more than they pay in, and vice-versa. You can liken it to a policy of motor insurance. If I buy a policy from Bestcover I know that, with luck, I may not make a claim upon the pot. My premium will help pay those unfortunate Bestcover policyholders unlucky enough to have a shunt or have their cars stolen. I don�t expect to have my premium refunded at the end of the year if I don�t make a claim. Who knows, next year it may be my turn to call upon the pot.
However, what I don�t expect is for Bestcover to start paying out to policyholders of Worstquote just because Bestcover got the wording wrong in their policy documents. I expect them to pay out only the sums they are liable for (on behalf of their policy holders) and not to squander it on others who have paid them no premiums.
The expansion of the European Community and the extensions of the �rights� of people in other countries (Worstquote) to have access to the premiums paid in by people in this country (Bestcover) means that their premiums are being misappropriated without their agreement.
I know you can extend this argument to encompass people born and bred in this country who never have and never will pay any premiums (and I will if you want to, another day) but that is different to the argument posed by this question.
If people feel the need to contribute funds to others in countries �less fortunate� that is their privilege. There are plenty of charities to help them achieve this. It should not be compulsory
Judge, that is exactly what I meant, I was referring, like Pippa, to the person who was complaining about paying tax into a system which supports any children as she doesn't have any.
I agree with you, claiming for children who aren't here is a fraudulant abuse of the system imo.
Of course if we are in the EU, then maybe I should get hold of all the countries' that are in the EU and the benefits they offer and apply for them too. If warsaw are willing to support my children then I'm willing to support theirs; if however they say no (which is, frankly, likely!) then we should say no to theirs. And obviously, I'm using warsaw as an example as did the judge.
I agree with you, claiming for children who aren't here is a fraudulant abuse of the system imo.
Of course if we are in the EU, then maybe I should get hold of all the countries' that are in the EU and the benefits they offer and apply for them too. If warsaw are willing to support my children then I'm willing to support theirs; if however they say no (which is, frankly, likely!) then we should say no to theirs. And obviously, I'm using warsaw as an example as did the judge.
The trouble is, Whickerman, that it was never adequately explained to the people of this country precisely what membership of the EC entailed. Even if it had been, they would have had little chance to change the course of events.
To say effectively, �you voted for it so you�re stuck with it� is not merely misleading but untrue. Many of the measures which spew out from �Europe� are not the result of treaties at all (and it is highly debatable whether people had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of these treaties). They originate from unelected officials over which the population has no control.
The principle stumbling block of the whole idea is that, whilst purporting to be a �Common Market� it is nothing of the sort. This is especially so since the expansion eastwards. So long as there are some member countries with average wages and costs at about one tenth of the levels of the �better off� (and I use that term cautiously), it will never be so.
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that British people �grow up� (whilst paying up). There are many people in this country who were born and raised here, whose parents were born and raised here and who between them all have paid in huge sums in taxes. They are currently being told that their taxes will most likely have to be increased to fund the basics that they have already paid for, but also to fund schemes such as (but not exclusively) the one mentioned in this question. The principle beneficiaries of these schemes will be people who have made no contribution to this country. These same people will see riches beyond their wildest dreams feted upon them whilst British people struggle to make ends meet.
(Cont�d)
To say effectively, �you voted for it so you�re stuck with it� is not merely misleading but untrue. Many of the measures which spew out from �Europe� are not the result of treaties at all (and it is highly debatable whether people had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of these treaties). They originate from unelected officials over which the population has no control.
The principle stumbling block of the whole idea is that, whilst purporting to be a �Common Market� it is nothing of the sort. This is especially so since the expansion eastwards. So long as there are some member countries with average wages and costs at about one tenth of the levels of the �better off� (and I use that term cautiously), it will never be so.
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that British people �grow up� (whilst paying up). There are many people in this country who were born and raised here, whose parents were born and raised here and who between them all have paid in huge sums in taxes. They are currently being told that their taxes will most likely have to be increased to fund the basics that they have already paid for, but also to fund schemes such as (but not exclusively) the one mentioned in this question. The principle beneficiaries of these schemes will be people who have made no contribution to this country. These same people will see riches beyond their wildest dreams feted upon them whilst British people struggle to make ends meet.
(Cont�d)
(Cont�d)
To suggest that reciprocal arrangements exist is misleading. Poland, for example, does not fund a Child Benefit system and no doubt if it did, it would find a way to deny British residents there the low level of funds which might be on offer.
I don�t blame the Poles, or the Latvians, or any other nationality for taking advantage of this ludicrous situation. They are simply doing what is best for them and their families in accordance with the opportunities that they have been told exist. It should now be quite obvious to everybody why �poorer� nations are clamouring at the door of the EC to be allowed in. It�s rather like opening a joint bank account with Bill Gates.
The blame lies squarely at the door of the current and previous governments of this country for allowing such a situation to develop. They should be ashamed of themselves for making the funds earned by hard working British people so ripe for easy plunder.
I'll say no more.
To suggest that reciprocal arrangements exist is misleading. Poland, for example, does not fund a Child Benefit system and no doubt if it did, it would find a way to deny British residents there the low level of funds which might be on offer.
I don�t blame the Poles, or the Latvians, or any other nationality for taking advantage of this ludicrous situation. They are simply doing what is best for them and their families in accordance with the opportunities that they have been told exist. It should now be quite obvious to everybody why �poorer� nations are clamouring at the door of the EC to be allowed in. It�s rather like opening a joint bank account with Bill Gates.
The blame lies squarely at the door of the current and previous governments of this country for allowing such a situation to develop. They should be ashamed of themselves for making the funds earned by hard working British people so ripe for easy plunder.
I'll say no more.
Okay, firstly there is a loophole in the law which will be fixed - we can agree on that.
As with most laws, when they first come out, there will be people to find and take advantage. The big accountancy companies pay people vast sums of money to do this for pretty much any business. As I have previously stated, we don't bat an eyelid when big businesses take advantage. How many people know that Philip Green (BHS boss) pays his wife (Monaco citizen) plenty of dividends so that he pays less tax?
Secondly, when you state that there are people born & bred who do not contribute - this is exactly the argument.
Papers like the Daily Mail will exaggerate and mislead the general public for their own causes. This is a perfect example.
As previously stated in the other thread - this is costing (by the Daily Mail's estimate) �45 million. The cost to the tax payer of the current owner of the Daily Mail not paying inheritance tax (thanks to 'good' accounting) is over 10 times that amount.
Don't remember big headlines about that loophole!
As with most laws, when they first come out, there will be people to find and take advantage. The big accountancy companies pay people vast sums of money to do this for pretty much any business. As I have previously stated, we don't bat an eyelid when big businesses take advantage. How many people know that Philip Green (BHS boss) pays his wife (Monaco citizen) plenty of dividends so that he pays less tax?
Secondly, when you state that there are people born & bred who do not contribute - this is exactly the argument.
Papers like the Daily Mail will exaggerate and mislead the general public for their own causes. This is a perfect example.
As previously stated in the other thread - this is costing (by the Daily Mail's estimate) �45 million. The cost to the tax payer of the current owner of the Daily Mail not paying inheritance tax (thanks to 'good' accounting) is over 10 times that amount.
Don't remember big headlines about that loophole!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Iphone To Android Adapter - Not For...
Technology15 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
