Poor Syrian refugees have it so bad :((

Author Topic: Poor Syrian refugees have it so bad :((  (Read 5950 times)

So you don't believe they should be given the opportunity to become taxpayers?
Quote where I have said that, please.

Quote where I have said that, please.
Refugees typically don't pay tax

You said you believe that non-tax payers shouldn't receive benefits. Are you saying you don't believe they should be entitled to any welfare? Cause that's a great way to stop them from becoming self sufficient tax-payers.

Refugees typically don't pay tax

You said you believe that non-tax payers shouldn't receive benefits. Are you saying you don't believe they should be entitled to any welfare? Cause that's a great way to stop them from becoming self sufficient tax-payers.
They should not be entitled to any welfare that the population of a country pays high tax on, no. Like I previously stated, charities are the best option.

We could plop down a country specifically made for them and they'd still come to the EU because they keep hearing that it's better here and that they will be helped, no country can take care of this constant influx of refugees something has to be done.

Also over here we got a refugee centre and i'd be completely fine with that, if they didn't loving steal from people living around the centre, they loving stole from an old lady even

« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 05:34:51 AM by Maxwell. »

They should not be entitled to any welfare that the population of a country pays high tax on, no. Like I previously stated, charities are the best option.
I'd be happy for my tax to go towards supporting those in need, regardless of whether they're a tax-paying citizen or not. Charities wouldn't come close to government as far as their fiscal capacity goes.

As far as 'government not spending money on things the tax payer won't benefit from', it's a bit of a ridiculous sentiment. Any government will have costs/overheads/projects/etc that aren't benefiting the tax payer in any form that could be cut well before we decide that the value of a Syrian life is less than the value of yours.

they're kicking german people out of their homes to make way for these people, which just isn't right
Holy stuff they are?
This stuff's going bad real fast, i mean whose loving idea was that

I'd be happy for my tax to go towards supporting those in need, regardless of whether they're a tax-paying citizen or not. Charities wouldn't come close to government as far as their fiscal capacity goes.

As far as 'government not spending money on things the tax payer won't benefit from', it's a bit of a ridiculous sentiment. Any government will have costs/overheads/projects/etc that aren't benefiting the tax payer in any form that could be cut well before we decide that the value of a Syrian life is less than the value of yours.
The thing is, you may be happy with it but a lot of other tax payers who struggle financially and pay tax that consumes a large portion of their wage are not. This isn't about who's life is more valuable, it's about financial priorities. The UK government is struggling enough as it is with all the benefits it's giving its population, giving these benefits out for free will only worsen the problem. I don't expect to go into a foreign country and get all their benefits without paying a penny.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 05:36:50 AM by General »

The thing is, you may be happy with it but a lot of other tax payers who struggle financially and pay tax that consumes a large portion of their wage are not. This isn't about who's life is more valuable, it's about priorities. The UK government is struggling enough as it is with all the benefits it's giving its population, giving these benefits out for free will only worsen the problem.
I think that's fair enough, but I also think it's a matter of sucking it up. People struggling is still better than people dying - and if it doesn't come down to the value of a domestic life being > than a refugee, the natural choice is to assist.

I don't expect to go into a foreign country and get all their benefits without paying a penny.
Subjected to the same environment and pressures as them, you honestly can't say that you wouldn't react the same way.

I think that's fair enough, but I also think it's a matter of sucking it up. People struggling is still better than people dying - and if it doesn't come down to the value of a domestic life being > than a refugee, the natural choice is to assist.
There are many ways that people can assist without needing to use tax money. And it shouldn't have to be a matter of sucking it up - you don't speak for everyone, it should be optional.

Subjected to the same environment and pressures as them, you honestly can't say that you wouldn't react the same way.
Doesn't matter how i'd react, expecting people to throw their money at me is unrealistic.

Mfw Boltster actually is A Nice Guy

There are many ways that people can assist without needing to use tax money.
Such as?

Doesn't matter how i'd react, expecting people to throw their money at me is unrealistic.
So how are people meant to react in that situation?

Mfw Boltster actually is A Nice Guy

only to people who actually know what their talking about and put up a decent conversation.

Such as?
CHARITIES.

So how are people meant to react in that situation?
I'm not saying how they should be reacting, i'm saying its unreasonable to expect benefits without paying.

CHARITIES.
As I said, it's nowhere near comparable to the fiscal impact a government can make on the situation. Charities are complimentary to a solution, they are not the solution.

I'm not saying how they should be reacting, i'm saying its unreasonable to expect benefits.
By saying that you're obviously dictating that how they're reacting is wrong to you, so again, how do you think they should be reacting?