On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 17:45:25 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

That regulation has nothing to do with fiddling tax returns.

If they had help sending their money to a tax haven island,
or could do an amazon then they wouldn't be paying a high
rate of tax then so effectively have more cash in their pocket.

But that isnt possible for a doctor or nurse. That works
for operations like amazon and murdoch because they
claim that the operation is actually in the tax haven

They claim.

and
that the operation in the normal taxing country has to
pay high costs to the operation in the tax haven and
so its the operation in the tax haven appears to be
making the profit .

But there is NO profit in health care. So anyone working to promote health isnlt making a profit.
Simple.


and the operation in the normal
taxing country is making a loss. Not possible for a
doctor to organise things like that.

No it's the laywers and solicotors jobs followed by law makers.


There'd be one hell of a stink if doctors had their own special tax
deal.

Like a lot of high end componies but they manage it via shares and
other
options.

Not possible for a doctor. They can't even operate as a corporation.

Why can't they,

Because their employer is employing an individual.

Who is their employer ?

The
doctor can't claim to be a corporation providing services
to the NHS, the NHS doesnt employ doctors like that.

So change it.
Make the health service a non profitable organisation or a charity.


what differnce does a corporation make ?

That allows the subsidiary in the normal tax country
to claim expenses paid to the parent in the tax haven
and so export their income to the tax haven. Not
possible for an individual to operate like that.

Then doctors should be paid as individuals.
It coukld be sorted, I see simialr things happen here
regarding who does what.


With both doctors and nurses, we simply
don't offer enough training places.

Then why not.

It costs a lot to provide those.

Why does it cost us mor eto provide them that other countries then ?

Because the labor and other costs are much higher in the
UK than in India and Pakistan and the Philippines, stupid.

What other costs do you mean things like housing,

That isnt a cost to the operation providing the training although
obviously if they dont pay enough to cover the cost of the
housing, they wont be able to find anyone to work for them.

It could be worked that way.


well in the past they had nurses accomedation that was cheaper than
renting,

And that is something that the low cost countrys
like India and Pakistan and the Philippines can
still do because again, they are low cost countrys.

They could do it here we used to.
Same with education how come an outside company can provide accommodation
while making a profit for itself and its shareholders but the govenment can't.




now the majority have to pay higher costs becuase of
teh private rental market which has been encouraged,
via the selling off and removel of council housing.

And the low cost countrys have plenty of cheap accommodation
and plenty of people prepared to 'live' like that while training,
realising that its only for a limited time till they qualify and
can then **** off to the UK etc and get paid a hell of a lot more.

Then there is the problem. The low paid can do exactly the same can;t they, they can come and clean cars without having to train for years.



Exactly so why support such an idea like the free movement
of people which only encourages such things the last time
this happened was during the slave trade

The last time that happened was actually just after war with the
windrushers.

No it wasn't as we were importing particular people for particualar
purposes the NHS and transport being the biggest two.

Thats a pig ignorant lie with the windrushes. And
slaves were imported for particular purposes too.

As I said similar situation to fill a gap, which could have been avioded.

No it could not have been avoided. The windrushes were
replacing those who had been killed in the war

that's whaty I told you.

And I said we haven;t lost many in wars since the 70s.

So if we educated and employed those already in the country like we did in the past.


and even
more who had been badly injured and who couldnt ever
do what they were doing before the war started, again.

but that isnlt the case now is it.
Are yuo still claiming we need to import workers because of the war ? which war exactly ?


It was always going to take 15-20 years before the boomers
would be able to do that work and so the windrushers were
in fact a very viable way to handle that situation.

I know but as I keep saying that is NOT the case now !
We haven;t go too few people therfpore need to import people,
we have enough people.



What was the Windrush generation?
Between 1948 and 1970, nearly half a million people moved
from the Caribbean to Britain, which in 1948 faced severe
labour shortages in the wake of the Second World War. The
immigrants were later referred to as "the Windrush generation".

Doesnt say that they were imported just for specific jobs.

But those with a brain know they were, London transport and the health service.
It was a short term idea to address the lack of workers it was never meant to happen every year from 1948 to the present day.



because we didn't have enough workers we imported them,
shoved them into overcrowded towns so the landowners
and other wealthy people could make a greater profit.

So things could get done in fact.

No to save money, save having to actually
train people to do the jobs needed.

Wrong with the windrushes.

Try reading up on it.

Done that already. The labor shortage meant that
there werent the people to train to do the jobs needed.

SO what happened to those peoplpe, why was there a shortage ?
Perhaps the year the windrush docked might give yuo a clue.



It wasnt a mistake, it did make sense at the time.

But doesn;t now,

Still does for the EU.

Maybe that's why some voted leave.

The reason Merkel was so keen on inviting
1M illegals to

How can they be illegals if invited ?

germany is that they still have one hell of a
demographic problem with a severe lack of people to train.

So they trained them in coffee shops ?
and teh german peole complianed because they were speaking English as a first language and not german.


and they still have one of the best training systems in the
entire first world. Their problem is a lack of people to train.

Then they should import more then shouldn't they.







the majority of Greece, spain and italy doesn't

But they get no say on EU policy.

I thought everyone had equal say.


Germany does OK, even though in Berlin the locals complain
that those serving cofffee don't speak german, but English.

Yes, but those get no say on EU policy either. Its Merkel,
Macron, Junkers etc that determine EU policy.

and people wonder why leave won.


but instead decided to follow the mistakes.

It wasnt a mistake then and isnt a mistake now for the EU.

It is for a lot of people.

Thats very arguable. Yes, the success of the EU is a massive
problem for Greece, Italy etc because thats the reason so
many of the illegal choose to move to the EU illegally,
but the success of the EU is also good for quite a bit
of the rest of the EU too, most obviously with CAP
for very inefficient agricultural producers in france etc.

If it was that good for people in the UK then they wouldn;t have voted to leave.