Forum menu
No its not wrong but in my opinion very unwise, very very unwise.
Agreed DrJ but asylum seekers etc aren't the issue numbers wise and the agenda of the EU is continued expansion and the majority of those joining are poor countries where the incentive to relocate to the richer EU economies is huge. We keep hearing about immigrants who are coming here and paying their taxes but with personal allowance at 11k each a couple can arrive and pay very little in the way of tax and certainly not enough to support the school paces and NHS services they will require.
JY I think refugees/asylum seekers should be funded like we do with the Lifeboats/RNLI. We have a charity setup which processes their applications and provides accommodation and remains responsible for them financially. If the public support asylum seekers morally they can do so by donating to the charities. The charity has a specific budget and that dictates the numbers.
Certainly interesting to see the politics, the Socialist Workers Party where out in force in West London around the QPR stadium with leaflets and banners saying Immigrants Welcome Here in what is a very ethnically mixed area
We keep hearing about immigrants who are coming here and paying their taxes but with personal allowance at 11k each a couple can arrive and pay very little in the way of tax and certainly not enough to support the school paces and NHS services they will require.
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a [b]net gain[/b] from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
A new report, put out by University College London’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, finds that immigrants from the 10 countries which joined the EU in 2004 contributed £4.96bn more in taxes up to 2011 than they took out through the use of benefits and public services. The study factors in immigrants’ proportionate share of public service costs.
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
Overly simplistic as shown by this [url= http://www.civitas.org.uk/immigration/LSI ]study[/url]
In this new analysis of the economic and demographic consequences of current levels of immigration, the distinguished Cambridge economist Robert Rowthorn finds that the potential economic gains from immigration are modest compared with the strains placed on amenities such as housing, land, schools, hospitals, water supply and transport systems.
While GDP as a whole will grow with increased immigration, Rowthorn notes, GDP per capita - a much better indicator of the nation's wealth - will be only marginally affected by the enormous population growth forecast for the coming century. He cites the Office for National Statistics' high migration scenario, which sees growth in the UK population of 20 million over the next 50 years and 29 million over the next 75 years - entirely from migration. This is equivalent to adding a city almost the size of Birmingham to the UK population every two-and-a-half years for the next 75 years.
"Unrestrained population growth would eventually have a negative impact on the standard of living through its environmental effects such as overcrowding, congestion and loss of amenity," Rowthorn writes.
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
@footflaps but these studies are hugely impacted by immigrants like all the bankers who come to work for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Societe Generale etc etc all of whom whould be granted a work VISA under any application scheme
UKIP are not saying there will be no immigration just an application process as exists in the Australia, the US, Canada etc etc
Just seen @mefty's post and that's exactly my point
Overly simplistic as shown by this study
They are two different things, one looks at what has happened (net gain) and one looks at what [b]might[/b] happen...
(LibDem) Having got a sniff of power and having to come to some accomodation with another party, they now find themselves the pariah of British politics.
No, not like this. The Lib Dems took a seat at the big table and it has broken them. They are no longer a lovable, hopeless third party who turn up every 5 years looking worthy; they've made themselves unvotable (Is that a word? It is now!) by showing that, when it all shakes out, they are the same as the other two and they long to be like them.
UKIP may have a respectable showing in the General Election, but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition, they will make themselves a respectable choice for the next GE.
Where they could pounce and really make themselves comfy in Parliament; having shaken off Farage along the way and having someone who at least appears normal at the helm.
[quote=footflaps said]
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits, although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
The report you quoted is for EU migration, what about non-EU ?
Edit: Found it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
[img] 
[/img]
Yet every study which looks into this concludes that the UK exchequer makes a net gain from immigrants ie they collectively pay more in taxes than they take in benefits.
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
although not a single tabloid or UKIP candidate will ever tell you so as it goes against the 'all immigrants are scum and the cause of all your problems' mantra.
Really? I thought Nige was pretty clear that immigration in itself was not a problem, whilst open door immigration from the entirety of the EU was
but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition
How can they possibly do that whilst having any power?
[quote=ScottChegg ]Where they could pounce and really make themselves comfy in Parliament; having shaken off Farage along the way and having someone who at least appears normal at the helm.
You do realise that he's actually the most sane of the lot of them?
They are two different things, one looks at what has happened (net gain) and one looks at what might happen...
If you read it, you will find considerable commentary and discussion on the past as well.
@footflaps but these studies are hugely impacted by immigrants like all the bankers
Think it's more that they are young and fit. If a load of elderly Romanians showed up things might be different.
Meanwhile - I will look for the reference about Germany, but basically it was about them being able to refuse benefits. IIRC it provoked some interest here as a possible precedent.
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
Because if you want to be part of the EU, you don't get that choice.
how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
we cannot do this for EU immigration just like "other countries" cannot
As for the rest we do pick and choose as we still have an immigration policy.
You just abandoned your free market principles in order to argue the government puts regulation in the way of the market.
Shameful leftism there 8)
Serious Q why do the right wing want to do this with people but they trust business? Never understood that duality.
Two things UKIP are perpetually misrepresented on are that they are [i]for[/i] assylum for refugees and that they are [i]for[/i] immigration - but as you say, selective.ninfan - Member
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
I see no logical reason why we do not at least try to get the right immigrants.
Furthermore, most of the things that blight UK resident's lives (be they British born or immigrant) are broadly associated with overpopulation. It is politically convenient to keep GDP (and thereby tax take) growing by means of immigration, but the real cost is being borne by ordinary people, unable to afford rising housing costs and the luxury of private services -in health, education and first class transport - to shield them from the overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.
We can't kid ourselves that we can do without better control of the rate of increase of population.
Looking at the value of an immigrant solely as tax paid is silly, you need to look at their gva. A student pays little or no tax, for instance, but they contribute £10bn per year to the UK economy directly, and even more indirectly.
Though of course that's falling every year, because Theresa May's a halfwit.
You flatter her there NW
You are not immune from racism due to your skin colour.
Was once verbally attacked by a shrieking and self-righteous neo-lib woman who entirely disagreed with that sentiment. She maintained that only caucasian people could be 'racist', and that I was 'racist' to suggest otherwise. Stupid honky cracker, I nearly called her a bimbo.
How can they possibly do that whilst having any power?
Win a few seats?
Furthermore, most of the things that blight UK resident's lives (be they British born or immigrant) are broadly associated with overpopulation. It is politically convenient to keep GDP (and thereby tax take) growing by means of immigration, but the real cost is being borne by ordinary people, unable to afford rising housing costs and the luxury of private services -in health, education and first class transport - to shield them from the overburdened infrastructure and welfare system.
Immigration has added to the strain a bit, but not as much as demographic changes which have happened in the UK, mainly smaller house holds, mass migration from rural areas to cities and economic migration to the SE. These have put enormous pressure on the housing market in certain areas and we've had successive governments who have no real interest in building new houses and are quite happy to let a housing bubble concentrate wealth in an elite few (those born before 1970). Even without migration we'd still have these problems.
You could blame immigration, but economic policy since 1979 has been focussed on enriching those that already have wealth (esp housing assets) at the expense of those that don't.
Net gain, some contribute, some don't - here's a wild idea, how about we pick and choose like other countries do?
Much like the locals, then. Who decides who should have a right to be here?
@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?
Win a few seats?
<Sigh> My reply was to "but if they manage to keep their distance from any coalition".
A few seats will get them nowhere. More than a few but less than a lot may get them into a coalition. I order to avoid a coalition and have power they need...?
The thing about UKIP is that while, on a cursory inspection, most of their policies look not totally bonkers (I do think that withdrawing from the EU would be v bad), a large proportion of their supporters and candidates really do seem to be swivel-eyed loons. Just look at the "gay marriage causing the floods" comments, anything that Godfrey Bloom says (although he has now left UKIP as it is too PC!), and the latest [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nigel-farage-tells-dominatrix-ukip-supporter-who-believes-leader-has-been-sent-from-god-im-not-the-messiah-im-a-very-naughty-boy-10090547.html ]"Nigel is the Messiah"[/url] wacko-doodlery.
It is a bad sign when Nigel Farage is the "voice of reason" in a party.
[quote=jambalaya ]@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?What's the current level of the deficit again?
jambalaya - Member
Does North Borneo have different laws to the rest of Malaysia - how does that work ?
The piece said it was a local law, so yes it seems they do. Plenty of countries have different regional/local laws and certainly different interpretations/implementations. Easy to imagine Borneo could have different laws than mainland Malaysia, plus then you have the majority Indonesian part of the Island plus Brunei
The Sharia law is only applicable to Muslim only I am afraid regardless of what they say. However, they are slowly encroaching/eroding others' rights by trying to impose such law. In fact there are many transgender people employ by non-Muslim businesses. You will find that the Indonesia might be more tolerant than M'sia since their country is so diverse. Brunei is different story as the country is ruled by the King i.e. absolute monarchy therefore the King can do as he wishes. His country so do as he likes. In other part of SE Asia like Thailand, Philippines, Laos, Vietnam etc transgender is not a big deal. It is only the countries that proclaim themselves to be Is-lam that have such draconian law against their own transgender population. Therefore, by trying to export Human Rights law to those embracing Sharia law might actually be counter productive. Unless you have Sharia Law or other draconian law in EU that infringes on gender issue I do not see the added value of Human Rights which current law has already covered.
it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?
To balance the population yes, which in turn will pay for our state pensions....
To balance the population yes, which in turn will pay for our state pensions....
It's my view that a very large number of the migrants come here to earn money which they send home. They pay very little tax if any and spent the absolute minimum here.
Relying on someone else to pay our pensions is madness.
The non-working British born section of the population is a huge burden. As footflaps says:jambalaya - Member
@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?
Ridiculously optimistic/unsustainable pension rights, granted decades ago are heaping pressure onto our ageing demographic.footflaps - Member
Immigration has added to the strain a bit, but not as much as demographic changes which have happened in the UK, mainly smaller house holds, mass migration from rural areas to cities and economic migration to the SE. These have put enormous pressure on the housing market in certain areas and we've had successive governments who have no real interest in building new houses and are quite happy to let a housing bubble concentrate wealth in an elite few (those born before 1970). Even without migration we'd still have these problems.
Inflation, it's a real ****er for those who are not in a position to invest. Now that most western governments are addicted to and entrenched in zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) it will only continue.footflaps - Member
You could blame immigration, but economic policy since 1979 has been focussed on enriching those that already have wealth (esp housing assets) at the expense of those that don't.
The number of Bulgarians and Romanians who applied for National Insurance Numbers rose 576% last year from 27,700 to 187,300
[url= http://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/new-open-europe-report-securing-free-trade-eu-brexit-likely-goods-sectors-far-harder-services/#section-4 ]link[/url]
deleted
jambalaya - Member@allthepies - that chart can't possibly make sense, it basically says the UK born population doesn't sustain itself and we are reliant on immigrants to balance the books ?
Nah, it's just too simplistic, similiar to the point I made up the page it only looks at tax paid by the individual, as if that's the sum economic contribution of a person. It's somewhat useful as a comparison between different groups of taxpayers but that's all.
hands up who has had their opinion changed by this thread and is now going to/not going to vote UKIP 😀
Not that anyone new is going to come to this thread, nor that most people are going to bother....
...but here's an interesting interview with [s]The Messiah[/s] Nige, that doesnt tear into him quite has harshly as most.
[quote=Stoner said]The Messiah Nige
Now you know Stoner, he's not the Messiah, he's a very....
I'm following this thread. I'm not very politically well read or knowledgeable so wouldn't comment as such, but I'm trying to learn. I did the "vote for policies" form and it gave me exactly 50/50 con/lib dem, which was a bit of a relief in a way, 0% UKIP. I do find "the usual suspects" posts interesting and admire some of your knowledge.
The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!
Immigration in a minor issue. If anything it has a mild positive impact in UK and other developed EU economies but he impact is as small as the issue itself. There are far more important issues that need to be addressed that do not rely on the hidden (or not so hidden) veil of xenophobia/mild racism or basic deceit.
The Idea that UKIP or any of the other fringe parties would have a dramatic impact on how things work in the UK is equally absurd as a quick tour of EU states today will show.
nor that most people are going to bother....
I made an effort because you recommended it Stoner but I gave up after about 6 paragraphs.
It didn't start off too good imo with this :
[i] ‘I judge everybody by two simple criteria. Number one: would I employ them? And number two: would I want to have a drink with them? To pass the Farage Test, you only have to pass one of those. [/i]
Obviously he doesn't mean that nonsense but it's a measure of what a muppet he is that he should apparently offer it as a serious example of one of his personal tenets.
Farage for all his self-created man of the people image is very much a product of his affluent class upbringing. The fact that he knows and is willing to exploit the fears, insecurity, and prejudices, of less well educated people does not diminish that.
He is "anti-establishment", if you believe that, not in the sense of fighting existing wealth and privilege but anti-establishment in the sense that the US Tea Party Republicans are anti-establishment, ie, they were created, by people with great power and wealth - despite their allegedly grassroot character, to take on the official Republican Party "establishment". And by doing so strengthen and guarantee the neoliberal free-market fundamentalist direction of the Republican Party.
The entire philosophy behind both UKIP and the Tea Party Republicans depends on turkeys voting for Christmas.
BTW not long ago I found myself in close proximity to Nigel Farage as we both shared the same bus from Bromely to Biggin Hill, however unlike the punters in your article the only thing which I felt a strong urge to shake him by was his throat, not his hand. Despite the obvious appeal of having an altercation with a posh public school educated toff on an omnibus I resisted such temptations.
I do fairly regularly cycle pass his house though, so the opportunity to shake him warmly might still present itself again.
Well he obviously lacks your compassion and humanity blacknose.
teamhurtmore - MemberThe frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!
I am afraid not all people agree with open door "welcome" immigration policy by the way.
Can you survive a plan crash? He is a lucky chap looking at that photo.
ernie_lynch - Member... however unlike the punters in your article the only thing which I felt a strong urge to shake him by was his throat, not his hand.
Do you dare do the same to a known hate preacher if you are in the bus with that person?
🙄
[quote=chewkw ]
teamhurtmore - Member
The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!
I am afraid not all people agree with open door "welcome" immigration policy by the way.
Are you attempting to prove that you're otherwise intelligent?
aracer - Member
Are you attempting to prove that you're otherwise intelligent?
That is an interesting response. 😆
I think we are on the same boat if I can understand you correctly regarding intelligence so move on otherwise we would be going in circle challenging each others' "intelligent" right down to being anal counting and comparing each others' IQ or EQ etc ... 😆
My reply was simply saying that some people just do not like open door policy. I was not trying to twist words etc ...
Yes, I might be stating the obvious but I was just saying that because I know my reason but I do not know others' reason(s) for rejecting the open door policy. All we can do is to speculate that they are racists.
What say you?
🙄
The frightening thing about UKIP is that they are able to make otherwise intelligent people swallow BS on immigration. It is cheap, nasty and poor politics but unsurprisingly works!
@tmh UKIP are simply addressing an issue many people are concerned about and mirroring back to those sample people their concerns. It's not cheap or nasty, it is simple and exists in the vacuum the main parties created by not confronting the issue. UKIPs messaging is much more powerful than we see from the other parties, it can easily counter accusations of racism by pointing out they want the same immigration policy as exists in the US or Australia.
All of that is ONLY true if you support a curb on immigration or blame immigration. Otherwise they are banging a drum, chanting half truths and appealing to baser human emotions in order to garner support.
As for easily deny racism it would be much easier if their own members and their own elected representatives stopped saying racist things on the tv.
It is certainly not a message that is universally accpeted a splenty on here consider them to be racist.
Personally I think the party is jingoistic and it attracts racists rather than it is an out an out racist party like the BNP. Basically its the place for little englanders who want to keep johnny foreigner at bay.