The stick or deportation?

[Helpful Herbert]

It is also important to distinguish between pensions and benefits: pensions are paid from specific pension funds built up through individuals’ contributions during their working lives, whereas benefits are funded from general tax revenues collected from the population.

Except the UK state pension is paid from general taxation, there is no specific pension fund for the state pension to be paid from. It is contribution -based though.

 

[Bob]

People should be aware that in the UAE, employees do not pay personal income tax on their salaries. In contrast, Singapore operates a territorial tax system. While foreign-sourced income is generally not taxed in Singapore, income that is accrued in or derived from work performed in Singapore is taxable. As a result, foreigners working in Singapore are still required to pay personal income tax and other applicable taxes. Singapore’s government could, if it wished, use tax revenue collected from employees including foreign workers to extend benefits more widely to residents, but it cleverly avoids doing so for obvious reasons.

As mentioned by @Helpful Herbert In the UK, taxation and welfare are largely based on residency rather than citizenship, meaning individuals may access benefits even if they have made little or no prior contribution. This approach has contributed to long-term fiscal strain and economic decline, with the UK declining from once being the richest country in the world to now ranking 31st and continuing to fall. Politicians often support this policy for political gain, since residents who receive benefits despite not having contributed to the system, and their families, may later become eligible voters.

It is also important to distinguish between pensions and benefits: pensions are paid from specific pension funds built up through individuals’ contributions during their working lives, whereas benefits are funded from general tax revenues collected from the population.

Yes Singapore has personal income tax, at very reasonable rates I might add. The government there gets a whole lot of revenue from other sources too.
They could indeed use some of that money to extend coverage to foreign workers but they don't want to, for political reasons. The government considers pushback from locals against perks for foreigners in their decisions.

 

[Balifrog]

They could indeed use some of that money to extend coverage to foreign workers but they don't want to, for political reasons. The government considers pushback from locals against perks for foreigners in their decisions.

Spot on. And they are right IMO.
The option the UK has taken, simply act like a magnet to more immigrants.

Why would they cross Italy, Germany, France without any interest to settle down there ? Simply because the UK offers better conditions....
HKG act in a different way, they lock them up in an "immigration transit center" but make it clear that there is zero chance they will go anywhere, except voluntarily go back where they came from. And again I agree.

 

[pantaiema]

Yes Singapore has personal income tax, at very reasonable rates I might add. The government there gets a whole lot of revenue from other sources too.
They could indeed use some of that money to extend coverage to foreign workers but they don't want to, for political reasons. The government considers pushback from locals against perks for foreigners in their decisions.

Spot on. And they are right IMO.
The option the UK has taken, simply act like a magnet to more immigrants.
Why would they cross Italy, Germany, France without any interest to settle down there ? Simply because the UK offers better conditions....
HKG act in a different way, they lock them up in an "immigration transit center" but make it clear that there is zero chance they will go anywhere, except voluntarily go back where they came from. And again I agree.

If people want to understand how some asylum seekers exploit the legitimate asylum system in the UK, take a look at these documentaries. It is important to note that these documentaries are produced by licensed news and newspaper outlets that have passed editorial scrutiny, not by random social media sources. There are penty of them from official news channel if you want to search it.

Many of the asylum seekers who cross the English Channel from France to the UK have already lived for years in safe European countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece, and France, yet still choose to cross the Channel as their final destination. In addition, they pay smugglers to transport them across the Channel while portraying themselves as victims. It has been reported by multiple news outlets that certain individuals who claim they would face death if returned to their home countries later travel back there for holidays after their asylum applications have been approved.

Just look at how they are treated after arriving on British soil. They are transported by comfortable buses to three-star hotels, often with amenities such as a full English breakfast. Once their asylum claims are approved, they become entitled to benefits comparable to those received by local citizens who have contributed through taxation over their working lives. These bogus asylum seekers are exploiting the legitimate asylum system and taking places away from genuine asylum seekers who are truly in danger.

Are British people who allow this system to continue simply foolish? Not necessarily. They are not spending their own money, but taxpayers’ money. Moreover, there can be political and/or financial incentives. These individuals and their children may later become voters. Human rights lawyers receive work defending them, funded by public money. Meanwhile, the hospitality industry benefits from accommodation contracts, and charities continue to receive donations by strongly advocating for the system to remain in place.

Migrants applying for asylum are going home for Christmas, Border Force chief reveals | LBC

Migrants applying for asylum in the UK are trying to go back home for Christmas, the UK's Border Force chief has told LBC.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[john madden]

Two things that trouble me right now: the bias of the sources quoted above AND how this thread has been moved from the original theme to one of old mate's hobby horses. Oh three things actually, the third being why I let myself get sucked into contributing to such thread creep.

 

[Bob]

If people want to understand how some asylum seekers exploit the legitimate asylum system in the UK, take a look at these documentaries. It is important to note that these documentaries are produced by licensed news and newspaper outlets that have passed editorial scrutiny, not by random social media sources. There are penty of them from official news channel if you want to search it.

Many of the asylum seekers who cross the English Channel from France to the UK have already lived for years in safe European countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece, and France, yet still choose to cross the Channel as their final destination. In addition, they pay smugglers to transport them across the Channel while portraying themselves as victims. It has been reported by multiple news outlets that certain individuals who claim they would face death if returned to their home countries later travel back there for holidays after their asylum applications have been approved.

Just look at how they are treated after arriving on British soil. They are transported by comfortable buses to three-star hotels, often with amenities such as a full English breakfast. Once their asylum claims are approved, they become entitled to benefits comparable to those received by local citizens who have contributed through taxation over their working lives. These bogus asylum seekers are exploiting the legitimate asylum system and taking places away from genuine asylum seekers who are truly in danger.

Are British people who allow this system to continue simply foolish? Not necessarily. They are not spending their own money, but taxpayers’ money. Moreover, there can be political and/or financial incentives. These individuals and their children may later become voters. Human rights lawyers receive work defending them, funded by public money. Meanwhile, the hospitality industry benefits from accommodation contracts, and charities continue to receive donations by strongly advocating for the system to remain in place.

Migrants applying for asylum are going home for Christmas, Border Force chief reveals | LBC

Migrants applying for asylum in the UK are trying to go back home for Christmas, the UK's Border Force chief has told LBC.

www.lbc.co.uk

Nothing from the Daily Mail?

 

[pantaiema]

Nothing from the Daily Mail?

Since you asked, I feel obliged to respond. The link above provides only a few examples; there are certainly more, and you can also find similar reports in the 'Daily Mail' if you search for them.

Licensed newspapers are required to comply with ethical standards and regulations, especially in countries known for having strict regulators and an active ombudsman. If news were fabricated, their licenses would be revoked. If you believe you can identify falsehoods or clearly misleading reporting, you are free to report them to the regulator.

Anyway, here are examples from the BBC, The Spectator, and The Times, which some people may consider more credible sources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66855830 Migrant hotel costs rise to £8m a day, Home Office figures show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr43ww32xx0o Home Office squandered billions on asylum hotels, MPs say
https://spectator.com/article/afghan-granted-asylum-returned-home-for-holiday/
Afghan refugee granted asylum in UK returned home for holiday