FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tax the Rich or Stop the Boats?
Tax the Rich or Stop the Boats?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The boats could be stopped simply by creating safe routes and improving asylum application and checking processes." When people say "stop the boats", they aren't actually complaining about the number of vessels arriving, they're complaining about the arrival of the people in the boats. Creating safe routes would not solve anything for those people, and they'd have to waste an extra 8 syllables on shouting "stop the unnecessary immigration" instead. "Fair taxation is a far more nuanced and complex problem to unlock. " That's certainly true enough. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The boats could be stopped simply by creating safe routes and improving asylum application and checking processes. When people say "stop the boats", they aren't actually complaining about the number of vessels arriving, they're complaining about the arrival of the people in the boats. Creating safe routes would not solve anything for those people, and they'd have to waste an extra 8 syllables on shouting "stop the unnecessary immigration" instead. " And since everyone has the right to claim asylum, they’re wasting their breath. In the meantime, grown ups in Parliament should be working on improving the asylum system so that it is more effective, with faster and more efficient processing - requiring no hotels or camp setups. | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. " We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving. | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving." The problem is the asylum process is easily exploited. Speeding up the process speeds up exploitation. | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving. The problem is the asylum process is easily exploited. Speeding up the process speeds up exploitation." There doesn’t have to be a correlation between speed and quality. Standards has to be set, met and maintained. In order to do that, the process will need revising, and *properly* funding and staffing | |||
"Sink the boats" Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before  | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving. The problem is the asylum process is easily exploited. Speeding up the process speeds up exploitation. There doesn’t have to be a correlation between speed and quality. Standards has to be set, met and maintained. In order to do that, the process will need revising, and *properly* funding and staffing " Quality? What needs to be improved? | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before "Thanks!  | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving. The problem is the asylum process is easily exploited. Speeding up the process speeds up exploitation. There doesn’t have to be a correlation between speed and quality. Standards has to be set, met and maintained. In order to do that, the process will need revising, and *properly* funding and staffing Quality? What needs to be improved?" As well as speed, mistakes are made - so improvement can be made there, and appeals get bogged down. An appeal should only be heard if the individual has new evidence to bring. Also waiting for deportation - should be quicker than it is - and similarly, successful asylum cases should be moved promptly ‘into society’ and granted documentation allowing work on cases where it applies. | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving. The problem is the asylum process is easily exploited. Speeding up the process speeds up exploitation. There doesn’t have to be a correlation between speed and quality. Standards has to be set, met and maintained. In order to do that, the process will need revising, and *properly* funding and staffing Quality? What needs to be improved? As well as speed, mistakes are made - so improvement can be made there, and appeals get bogged down. An appeal should only be heard if the individual has new evidence to bring. Also waiting for deportation - should be quicker than it is - and similarly, successful asylum cases should be moved promptly ‘into society’ and granted documentation allowing work on cases where it applies. " Playing this out: How do we remove the exploitation when a person from a country with no returns agreement is guaranteed a pass. If that person failed at first attempt by not having ID or any other way of being identified, an appeal would be of no value as it does not change the outcome, but it costs thousands. There are many outcomes similar to this that can be exploited, which makes me challenge the idea that an internal process change would not resolve any of the exploits. | |||
" Happy to help genuine asylum seekers but if you think all these people are genuinely feeling persecution then there’s something wrong with you. We’re all happy to help genuine asylum seekers, and we all agree that fakers should be turned back. How does one differentiate between the two? With an asylum processing system. Which is what we have. The problem is that it’s slow. Very slow. That’s where it needs improving. The problem is the asylum process is easily exploited. Speeding up the process speeds up exploitation. There doesn’t have to be a correlation between speed and quality. Standards has to be set, met and maintained. In order to do that, the process will need revising, and *properly* funding and staffing Quality? What needs to be improved? As well as speed, mistakes are made - so improvement can be made there, and appeals get bogged down. An appeal should only be heard if the individual has new evidence to bring. Also waiting for deportation - should be quicker than it is - and similarly, successful asylum cases should be moved promptly ‘into society’ and granted documentation allowing work on cases where it applies. Playing this out: How do we remove the exploitation when a person from a country with no returns agreement is guaranteed a pass. If that person failed at first attempt by not having ID or any other way of being identified, an appeal would be of no value as it does not change the outcome, but it costs thousands. There are many outcomes similar to this that can be exploited, which makes me challenge the idea that an internal process change would not resolve any of the exploits. " We have forced return processes - cooperation varies from nation to nation - but the burdon of proof lies with the individual to prove that they need asylum, not for the chosen asylum nation to prove they don’t. Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention. | |||
"Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention. " You seem very sure that we won't leave the Convention. Why do you think that is such a certainty? | |||
"Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention. You seem very sure that we won't leave the Convention. Why do you think that is such a certainty?" Because it would make the UK a global pariah. | |||
"Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention." "You seem very sure that we won't leave the Convention. Why do you think that is such a certainty?" "Because it would make the UK a global pariah." And you can't think of any other occasion in history where Britain has made a decision that the rest of the world thought was madness? | |||
"Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention. You seem very sure that we won't leave the Convention. Why do you think that is such a certainty? Because it would make the UK a global pariah. And you can't think of any other occasion in history where Britain has made a decision that the rest of the world thought was madness?" Oh I absolutely can. An this would be much worse. I suspect it would lead to trade loss and potential legal action (on such subjects as non-refoulement). | |||
"Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention." "You seem very sure that we won't leave the Convention. Why do you think that is such a certainty?" "Because it would make the UK a global pariah." "And you can't think of any other occasion in history where Britain has made a decision that the rest of the world thought was madness?" "Oh I absolutely can." And I'm sure you didn't think it would happen then. Just like you think it won't happen this time. You were wrong then, why are you so convinced that you're right this time? "An this would be much worse. I suspect it would lead to trade loss and potential legal action (on such subjects as non-refoulement)." There wouldn't be any legal action, because any government that would leave the 1951 Convention would also be leaving the ECHR. | |||
"Regardless, the only option we have is to improve our asylum laws and processes (as we’ve done in recent years) - because we’re not going to back out of the refugee convention. You seem very sure that we won't leave the Convention. Why do you think that is such a certainty? Because it would make the UK a global pariah. And you can't think of any other occasion in history where Britain has made a decision that the rest of the world thought was madness? Oh I absolutely can. And I'm sure you didn't think it would happen then. Just like you think it won't happen this time. You were wrong then, why are you so convinced that you're right this time? An this would be much worse. I suspect it would lead to trade loss and potential legal action (on such subjects as non-refoulement). There wouldn't be any legal action, because any government that would leave the 1951 Convention would also be leaving the ECHR." Non refoulement exists in international law outside of the ECHR. | |||
"An this would be much worse. I suspect it would lead to trade loss and potential legal action (on such subjects as non-refoulement)." "There wouldn't be any legal action, because any government that would leave the 1951 Convention would also be leaving the ECHR." "Non refoulement exists in international law outside of the ECHR. " And other international treaties can also be abandoned. I'm surprised by your belief that the UK wouldn't take a path that you consider would harm their own best interest, especially when you keep talking about how foolish it was for us to have already done that in the recent past. | |||
"An this would be much worse. I suspect it would lead to trade loss and potential legal action (on such subjects as non-refoulement). There wouldn't be any legal action, because any government that would leave the 1951 Convention would also be leaving the ECHR. Non refoulement exists in international law outside of the ECHR. And other international treaties can also be abandoned. " I didn’t say they can’t, did I? I said there would be likely ramifications, and I am correct. | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks! "I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? | |||
"An this would be much worse. I suspect it would lead to trade loss and potential legal action (on such subjects as non-refoulement)." "There wouldn't be any legal action, because any government that would leave the 1951 Convention would also be leaving the ECHR." "Non refoulement exists in international law outside of the ECHR." "And other international treaties can also be abandoned." "I didn’t say they can’t, did I?" No, you said they won't, despite all the evidence that some political parties intend to do so. "I said there would be likely ramifications, and I am correct. " No one has denied that there would be consequences. What we're discussing here is why you think that the right wing parties wouldn't be willing to face those consequences. | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? "Who said anything about murder? | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ?
Who said anything about murder?"So you want to sink the boats without murdering people | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ?
Who said anything about murder?
So you want to sink the boats without murdering people
"That's what the French coastguard is for. | |||
| |||
"Politics tends to be reduced to three-word slogans nowadays. Two opposing themes that seem to be emerging as the front runners for political discourse appears to be either 'Tax the Rich' or 'Stop the Boats'. There's so much nuance in them to be distilled into such simplisitc terms, but wondered which side of the debate the Fab community reside?" I haven't got time to give a long ramble, as at work. But, can I ask you one question? What do you as the OP class as being rich? High salary. Large home once paid for. Business valuation and net profits etc. Property as in primary and second / holiday homes etc. Once you decide what is rich, then how much do you want from each revenue stream and individual asset. As far as the FAB community. We have found the people we meet, as in face to face, draw from a broad church, people who spend all day on FAB probably are not the highest earners as most high paid jobs need commitment and long hours. Maybe I'm totally wrong. Thanks. | |||
" We have found the people we meet, as in face to face, draw from a broad church, people who spend all day on FAB probably are not the highest earners as most high paid jobs need commitment and long hours. " The hardest I’ve ever worked was on the lowest rungs. The higher you climb (certainly in my experience) the less physical work you do - and the more delegation and decision making you’re responsible for. | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ?
Who said anything about murder?
So you want to sink the boats without murdering people
That's what the French coastguard is for."I think you will find that is not the job of any national coastguard | |||
" We have found the people we meet, as in face to face, draw from a broad church, people who spend all day on FAB probably are not the highest earners as most high paid jobs need commitment and long hours. The hardest I’ve ever worked was on the lowest rungs. The higher you climb (certainly in my experience) the less physical work you do - and the more delegation and decision making you’re responsible for." True, sort of. I've worked incredibly hard to get to my position and although not physically difficult, the responsibility increases but so does my ability to cope in stressful situations. | |||
| |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before "Nobody wrote it, but everybody thinks it, and wants it. | |||
" We have found the people we meet, as in face to face, draw from a broad church, people who spend all day on FAB probably are not the highest earners as most high paid jobs need commitment and long hours. The hardest I’ve ever worked was on the lowest rungs. The higher you climb (certainly in my experience) the less physical work you do - and the more delegation and decision making you’re responsible for." Perhaps many have done the work, done the graft and sitting back retired from age 55 onwards | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ?
Who said anything about murder?
So you want to sink the boats without murdering people
That's what the French coastguard is for.
I think you will find that is not the job of any national coastguard "Oh well, cest la vie ! | |||
" We have found the people we meet, as in face to face, draw from a broad church, people who spend all day on FAB probably are not the highest earners as most high paid jobs need commitment and long hours. The hardest I’ve ever worked was on the lowest rungs. The higher you climb (certainly in my experience) the less physical work you do - and the more delegation and decision making you’re responsible for. Perhaps many have done the work, done the graft and sitting back retired from age 55 onwards " Well good luck to them. | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? "most definitely | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks!
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? most definitely "If you’re in favour of the death penalty, you’re willing to accept yourself or a member of your family being found guilty in a miscarriage of justice, and being put to death by the state. | |||
| |||
"Asylum backlog doubles in last year under Labour. 🤦♂️" Appeals have shot up, suggesting more and more asylum cases are being refused | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks! j
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? most definitely "The issue you have there is that if you get someone to sink a boat which leads to the death and murder of someone on board , you are then asking for the person who sank the boat to receive the death penalty | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks! j
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? most definitely
The issue you have there is that if you get someone to sink a boat which leads to the death and murder of someone on board , you are then asking for the person who sank the boat to receive the death penalty "I can envisage clamouring for the death penalty becoming less popular as the pool of potential murderers starts to include multitudes of boat stoppers! | |||
"Sink the boats Quality comment. I'm surprised nobody came up with that before
Thanks! j
I wonder if those advocating the sinking of boats are also in favour of the death penalty for murder ? most definitely
The issue you have there is that if you get someone to sink a boat which leads to the death and murder of someone on board , you are then asking for the person who sank the boat to receive the death penalty "There are a few logical leaps in that reasoning that renders it nonsensical. | |||
