|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 8:42:52 GMT
No, it was an implied better situation today had immigration hadn't happened. Its flaw is that it implies everything including pot holes would be cured if immigration hadn't happened. What has mass immigration improved?. Can you honestly say that our towns and cities are the better for it? I've never seen a coherent answer to that question. The best anyone has ever come up is 'Samosa, saris and steel drums'. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:45:13 GMT
Do you think charities cover the cost of cancer research and treatment in this country? In any case that has little to do with the amount of diseases and ailments that were treatable in 1950 compared to now. People like Pacifico want todays level of treatment at 1950's prices. He sees little connection between increased costs and increased treatments. No I am just pointing out progress isn't all down to the amount of money the NHS can seem to waste, I dispute that the NHS is particularly wasteful. That makes no sense to me. There are thousands of things the NHS can treat today that they couldn't in 1950. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 8:45:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 8:46:22 GMT
Assuming an overdose of irony being prescribed here, would you say that the treatments for these diseases would never have been developed if it hadn't been for mass immigration? My views here have been aired frequently. That we could easily have the NHS of today without immigration if we were prepared to pay for it. Do you believe that the introduction of fifteen million new people, mostly from very much poorer countries and with generally much lower SES than the native population, has enhanced the country's ability to fund the NHS?
Is there a source you can point to which confirms this proposition?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 8:47:33 GMT
Which there is a huge amount of money via charities pumped into cancer research, which in actual fact has nothing to do with how the NHS is run. Do you think charities cover the cost of cancer research and treatment in this country? In any case that has little to do with the amount of diseases and ailments that were treatable in 1950 compared to now. People like Pacifico want todays level of treatment at 1950's prices. He sees little connection between increased costs and increased treatments. Well that is untrue - I'm simply pointing out how flawed your argument is when you claim we need mass immigration to have a functioning modern health service. I have said absolutely nothing about costs. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 26, 2023 8:48:54 GMT
No I am just pointing out progress isn't all down to the amount of money the NHS can seem to waste, I dispute that the NHS is particularly wasteful. That makes no sense to me. There are thousands of things the NHS can treat today that they couldn't in 1950. They managed to burn how many millions in useless PPE? I knew the second part would have no meaning for you, although of course it does matter. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 26, 2023 8:52:08 GMT
prepare to be shocked oh naive one.. Fair enough. I'm obviously just very lucky to live where I do. Heck, you can even visit an NHS dentist here. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:52:08 GMT
Yep. Their ability to treat Parkinson's and bowel cancer are well documented. Technological advances are not dependent on immigration. Japan has exactly the same access to modern medicine without decades of mass migration. We could copy their system and pay 30% of our health bills in person. This would have replaced the need for ever increasing the population to drive up GDP to pay next years bill. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:53:29 GMT
What has mass immigration improved?. Can you honestly say that our towns and cities are the better for it? I've never seen a coherent answer to that question. The best anyone has ever come up is 'Samosa, saris and steel drums'. Its about the extra cash, always has been. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 8:59:42 GMT
700,000 people paying around 7k in tax in their first year here is around £4Bn quid, And they don't claim much in that first year.
Of course next year they start to need government services, so you need another 700,000 in that year and the next and the next.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 9:01:22 GMT
By cash I presume you mean tax revenues. There have been numerous studies which show that immigrants in the aggregate have little or no fiscal benefit for the exchequer.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 9:05:56 GMT
By cash I presume you mean tax revenues. There have been numerous studies which show that immigrants in the aggregate have little or no fiscal benefit for the exchequer. That's because the studies do the sensible thing and look at longer term than the first year or two. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 26, 2023 9:11:49 GMT
By cash I presume you mean tax revenues. There have been numerous studies which show that immigrants in the aggregate have little or no fiscal benefit for the exchequer. That's because the studies do the sensible thing and look at longer term than the first year or two. Well you know me, I love a bit of irony, what if it hasn't worked out that way long term? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 9:19:03 GMT
Yes it certainly seems to have worked out well, bringing in all those millions of future high earners and taxpayers.
"48 per cent of children from Black and minority ethnic groups in the UK are in poverty, "
Source: Child Poverty Action Group
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 9:23:46 GMT
That's because the studies do the sensible thing and look at longer term than the first year or two. Well you know me, I love a bit of irony, what if it hasn't worked out that way long term? I don't think it has. We need to get off the merry go round and accept that the services we want mean more money paid in tax and less on foreign holidays. It means looking at those who earn enough to pay more and stop pretending they can't afford to pay more while having 5 or 6 holidays a year etc. I know the answer will be that the rich will all leave, or that they're already paying too much, but the alternative is that we accept an earlier or more painful death for those who can't afford to pay. no one on here has ever discussed this. All you get is claims that removing diversity managers and rainbow crossings would pay for it.  Its so obvious to me that no one wants to look to close lest the truth of it dawns |
|
