|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 9:27:27 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 Again, its that first year ready cash. Though you touch on a different aspect, the money saving of having cheap labour doing government work. That also saves tax. Tax we would have to pay if we stopped inviting people from countries where you earn a pound an hour. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 10:16:10 GMT
I recall the survey from the LSE which showed that, while over a ten-year period the fiscal effect of EU migration was broadly neutral, non-EU immigration over the same period resulted in a fiscal deficit of £114 billion. The deficit being the difference between tax revenue received and services including NHS care consumed.
Since then of course EU immigration has turned strongly negative while non-EU has more than quadrupled. I wonder what the fiscal effects of that transformation will have been (I don't really - it's obviously not good).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 10:19:02 GMT
Please explain this 'first year ready cash' concept. I've never seen that used anywhere else.
Is this shorthand for 'even if first generation immigrants are a dead loss fiscally, in twenty-five years or so their offspring will come good and pay for our pensions etc'?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 10:49:53 GMT
I recall the survey from the LSE which showed that, while over a ten-year period the fiscal effect of EU migration was broadly neutral, non-EU immigration over the same period resulted in a fiscal deficit of £114 billion. The deficit being the difference between tax revenue received and services including NHS care consumed. Since then of course EU immigration has turned strongly negative while non-EU has more than quadrupled. I wonder what the fiscal effects of that transformation will have been (I don't really - it's obviously not good). Yep long term thinking. You are familiar with how governments think? We are in agreement on the EU. Had we resolved the minor issues with housing benefits etc going back to Poland the figure would have been positive. Let alone the cost savings of having Polish porters who think £12 an hour is good money. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 10:59:30 GMT
Please explain this 'first year ready cash' concept. I've never seen that used anywhere else. Is this shorthand for 'even if first generation immigrants are a dead loss fiscally, in twenty-five years or so their offspring will come good and pay for our pensions etc'? I don't think I have either. Without being a conspiracy theorist  I wonder why. The principle is as simple as it seems. You need some quick money so you take a payday loan. Short term problem solved, long term bad idea. You need more money to run the government but the public like lower taxes and wont elect me if I raise them. So I invite 700,000 people to come here and earn money and pay tax. I know that within a few years the infrastructure needed for those people will overtake their contributions (Or at the very least negate them) but I'm interested in keeping tax down this year. I know that they will put the health service under extreme pressure, I know this will make working their unpleasant and drive up wages in order to fill posts. I know all this stuff but the public tell me they want the new and better services NOW but don't want to pay for them. So I cheat. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 11:17:55 GMT
Where does this 700,000 number come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 11:21:54 GMT
Where does this 700,000 number come from? My head, its an example. It could be 360,000 immigrants or 459,000 or 675,000. The principle is the same. Just like the amount you borrow on a pay day loan is academic to the fact its a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 11:32:02 GMT
The reason I asked is that the number is suspiciously close to the net migration figure just announced (768,000).
But of course only a fraction of those admitted arrived for purposes of employment (278,000 in fact) and of that fraction only a smaller fraction are actually workers (the figures include dependents).
In addition a large proportion are care workers arriving on special visas which allow employers to pay just the minimum wage (£20,960), far below the UK average wage of £34,000.
Given the actual numbers, as opposed to the ones inside your head, what sort of a tax yield do you think this year's intake will be contributing? And how will that compare to the expenditures on services for them and their dependants?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 11:42:42 GMT
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. Have you missed the fact that I have been calling for a modern insurance based system for years? - this of course has 2 benefits. First it would reduce any need for immigration and second we would have a decent well functioning health service. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 26, 2023 11:48:16 GMT
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. Not sure there is much extra cash around - more like a drain on the exchequer. This is highlighted by 50% of social housing in London being occupied by people who were born overseas - I'm not seeing this tax bonanza you think exists. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 26, 2023 12:00:27 GMT
All the indicators including child poverty, free school meals, the pupil premium and school enrolment, employment rates, crime statistics, social housing, takeup of other benefits including healthcare, etc etc show that Zany's figures for fiscal revenues are, as he said, all in his head.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 12:01:29 GMT
The reason I asked is that the number is suspiciously close to the net migration figure just announced (768,000). But of course only a fraction of those admitted arrived for purposes of employment (278,000 in fact) and of that fraction only a smaller fraction are actually workers (the figures include dependents). In addition a large proportion are care workers arriving on special visas which allow employers to pay just the minimum wage (£20,960), far below the UK average wage of £34,000. Given the actual numbers, as opposed to the ones inside your head, what sort of a tax yield do you think this year's intake will be contributing? And how will that compare to the expenditures on services for them and their dependants? It was suspiciously close because that's the sort of number being quoted. The idea of allowing students to bring dependants is insane. I believe the government is now going to curtail this. I also believe it was added with the idea that students could stay on here and work after completing the course. Tax tax tax. Those applying to work here need to be on atleast 24k a year therefore that tax would be about 38% of that (All taxes included) so 9k.x 278,000= £2.5bn Those on special visas are saving the government tax by doing jobs that would cost higher wages to fill with Brits. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 26, 2023 12:01:39 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. At last ! An admission that mass immigration equals cheap labour ! 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 12:03:13 GMT
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. Have you missed the fact that I have been calling for a modern insurance based system for years? - this of course has 2 benefits. First it would reduce any need for immigration and second we would have a decent well functioning health service. Just so long as everyone can afford it and everyone gets the same cover. Most countries that provide this pay more than we do. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 26, 2023 12:04:38 GMT
All the indicators including child poverty, free school meals, the pupil premium and school enrolment, employment rates, crime statistics, social housing, takeup of other benefits including healthcare, etc etc show that Zany's figures for fiscal revenues are, as he said, all in his head. Jeez. I explained it to you in good faith. Pointless, I expected better of you. |
|
I wonder why. 
