|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 27, 2023 17:06:23 GMT
Offset by a huge reduction in demand for NHS care as well as for all public services from education to social housing to policing. I believe one in 5 of NHS staff are immigrants, when you add on those of immigrant extraction it raises higher still. You would still need to maintain infrastructure of public services. I notice you didn't answer my question. Why should an accident of birth mean I have to justify my right to live in my own country but you don't? If you and any offspring you may have disappeared tomorrow, what would the rest of us miss? If you are adding immigrant extraction then the general population is about 1 in 4 and if that is the level of workers in the health service then very simple proportion indicates that they are not 'saving' the NHS they are merely staffing it at the levels consistent with their numbers. If you are purely on immigrants then it is 19% and in the general population it is about 16% so no great shakes there either. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 17:08:18 GMT
Don't many countries offer certain privileges to 'natives' that are not available to newcomers or those of foreign descent? Certainly all those in the subcontinent do.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 27, 2023 17:12:07 GMT
I don't wish to be unkind but I do believe that the interest of those of indigenous ancestry trumps that of those of recent provenance, including the natural right of tenure. You will almost certainly find a very similar opinion prevails in whichever country your family hailed from originally. I don't have exact current figures for NHS employment but would not be surprised to find that it is around the same as the proportion of the population of post-war migration background. In other areas of public service, education for example, the numbers of migration background taking advantage of the service far exceeds the numbers employed therein. So it's based purely on an accident of birth? You've singled out a specific demographic group for special treatment and asked them to justify themselves in a way that you don't ask anyone else to. Indeed you have not even attempted to justify you and your family's presence her in the way you do for me and mine. Tell me, what would be the moral difference in asking say, disabled people, to justify themselves in the same way? It is not 'accident' of birth it is basically family, tribe, nation and the homogeneity of the electorate in a population is what makes democracy work. As we can see it is suffering a crisis at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 17:15:03 GMT
I didn't ignore it. I just considered it an unproven thesis based on dubious assumptions and lacking any numerical support. When I challenged the 700,000 number you replied it was just a figure in your head, indicating that the rest of the thesis is just as ephemeral. As a long-term sceptic about the benefits of mass immigration I was interested in your remark about cutting immigration incurring costs as well as gain but nothing you have written before or since helps me identify what those costs might be. I have often posed the following question as a thought experiment: If all the postwar migrants and their offspring were to be magically trans-levitated back to their ancestral homelands overnight, what would we miss? Answering that question would reveal what if any costs are likely to ensue. Because the 70k was irrelevant. A number demonstrating a principle. The principle works whether the government bring in 350,000 migrants or 5 million migrants. All that changes is the amount of extra tax. As I thought you'd gathered by my comparison to payday loans, I am not a fan of this system, merely bringing it to your attention. Cutting immigration does not incur costs it merely reduces income. If you decide not to have lodgers because long term the damage they do to your home out weighs the gains, that is fine, but you still need to work out how you are going to replace the income they provided in the short term. If you magically trans-levitated all the post war migrants back to their ancestral homelands overnight, what would we miss? Their tax. But you keep missing the point. The Ponzi scheme I describe only works if you keep adding more people every year. So year one you take in a lodger and he pays you £4,000, but by year 2 he is costing you £4,100 in damage wear and tear, food etc. So: Net gain year one £4,000. Net loss year 2 £-100 So you take in a second lodger to make up the loss Net gain year one £4,000. Net loss year 2 £-100 So you take in a third lodger to make up for the loss Net gain year one £4,000. Net loss year 2 £-100. You are currently £11,700 up but you now have a very crowded house. You can keep this up forever but the down sides are becoming obvious and the gains only work if you get another new lodger every year. So you decide enough is enough and you stop any more new lodgers, but you still need that 4k a year so you have to find it somewhere else. Do you at least understand the principle? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 17:17:17 GMT
This. All I've ever wanted on this subject is for those in favour of cutting immigration recognise there is a cost to doing it as well as a gain. Well said Sandy. I do not think anyone has said it is a dawdle as immigration has advantages and disadvantages. I think we are well past the point when it is an advantage to the bulk of the populace (at least 25 years). It is a balance and the tipping point was reached a long time ago yet it has increased 10 fold and at least increased at that level from a promised level. Agreed again Sandy. Which is why I searched for an explanation as to why governments keep doing it. I don't sign up to the idea that they're all just mad globalists trying to destroy our culture. It seemed far more likely it was about money. Hence my theory. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 27, 2023 17:18:11 GMT
I have already given an idea, which you haven't commented on.
But in basic terms we have not become more productive per person for a very long time, so all growth in GDP is just growth in population size. Perhaps its mass immigration that is causing that problem? Perhaps. Perhaps my Rabbit is a dog. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 27, 2023 17:26:23 GMT
I do not think anyone has said it is a dawdle as immigration has advantages and disadvantages. I think we are well past the point when it is an advantage to the bulk of the populace (at least 25 years). It is a balance and the tipping point was reached a long time ago yet it has increased 10 fold and at least increased at that level from a promised level. Agreed again Sandy. Which is why I searched for an explanation as to why governments keep doing it. I don't sign up to the idea that they're all just mad globalists trying to destroy our culture. It seemed far more likely it was about money. Hence my theory. I would have said that they are not mad globalists but teh attendance at various WEF dos and teh appearance of the WEF at dos that are basically nothing to do with them does the raise the spectre of some form of joint action to bring countries under joint leadership and control. The thing is that the WEF tell us that is what they are trying to do, perhaps we should take them at their word. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 17:43:58 GMT
So it's based purely on an accident of birth? You've singled out a specific demographic group for special treatment and asked them to justify themselves in a way that you don't ask anyone else to. Indeed you have not even attempted to justify you and your family's presence her in the way you do for me and mine. Tell me, what would be the moral difference in asking say, disabled people, to justify themselves in the same way? It is not 'accident' of birth it is basically family, tribe, nation and the homogeneity of the electorate in a population is what makes democracy work. As we can see it is suffering a crisis at the moment. Of course it's an accident of birth, did you choose your parents? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 17:45:40 GMT
Don't many countries offer certain privileges to 'natives' that are not available to newcomers or those of foreign descent? Certainly all those in the subcontinent do. And? Other countries do all sorts of morally questionable things. Your argument seems like one of many I've come across, essentially a long winded attempt to intellectually justify bullying. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 27, 2023 17:47:10 GMT
@zany:
Yes I do understand the principle behind your Ponzi scheme but still believe you are basing your model on an underlying dubious assumption.
That being that, on the average and in the aggregate, you are assuming a positive tax yield (net of expenditures) from your participants. I don't believe that is likely to be the case.
Most immigrants are low earners, the earnings threshold is well below the average wage which is of course a large part of their attractiveness to prospective employers.
Nobody has ever figured out how much it costs to run a multi-racial multicultural society but I would not be surprised to learn it was something on the order of 30% of public spending or 15% of GDP. The tax yield from immigrants and the immigrant-descended population is nowhere close to those figures. Remember, except for the few percent who are managers or specialists employed by MNCs on short-term assignments, immigrants are for the most part younger, lower-earning, lower SES generally and much less likely to bring with them sufficient capital to avoid being a drain on public resources and infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 27, 2023 18:06:06 GMT
I do not think anyone has said it is a dawdle as immigration has advantages and disadvantages. I think we are well past the point when it is an advantage to the bulk of the populace (at least 25 years). It is a balance and the tipping point was reached a long time ago yet it has increased 10 fold and at least increased at that level from a promised level. Agreed again Sandy. Which is why I searched for an explanation as to why governments keep doing it. I don't sign up to the idea that they're all just mad globalists trying to destroy our culture. It seemed far more likely it was about money. Hence my theory. Aren't globalists totally attracted to the money then? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 27, 2023 18:12:07 GMT
It is not 'accident' of birth it is basically family, tribe, nation and the homogeneity of the electorate in a population is what makes democracy work. As we can see it is suffering a crisis at the moment. Of course it's an accident of birth, did you choose your parents? No but they chose where and when to have me. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 18:12:30 GMT
Of course it's an accident of birth, did you choose your parents? No but they chose where and when to have me. So did mine. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 27, 2023 18:16:35 GMT
No but they chose where and when to have me. So did mine. Then what is the problem with being in the UK, it is not an accident, it is usually a decision made by parents to accommodate what they believe is best for their issue. I know some Scots working in England who took themselves across the border to give birth to ensure the child could class himself as Scottish. These are parental choices. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 27, 2023 18:19:33 GMT
Then what is the problem with being in the UK, it is not an accident, it is usually a decision made by parents to accommodate what they believe is best for their issue. I know some Scots working in England who took themselves across the border to give birth to ensure the child could class himself as Scottish. These are parental choices. Because I can't help being born the son of an immigrant, just as some people can't help being born disabled. What's the moral difference between singling the former and the latter out for special treatment? |
|
