Only Immigration can save us from Pensioners

Mrs_Arcanum

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It's absolutely ludicrous to imagine that immigration is any sort of 'solution' to our pensions - or anything else for that matter. At least not while we have high unemployment.

My perception is that - by and large - the majority of immigrants do work [good!] but almost exclusively at the very lowest end of the pay scale. So they are not paying much in the way of tax. Let's assume that with their small tax/NI, deducting their free health service, education for their kids, some of their kin who are on benefits, that they "wipe their faces" as regards the government coffers.

I think that's a generous assumption, but even if true, then all it does is maintains the excuse and ability for our 'idle rich' [the unemployed] to stay at home while we subsidise them big time.

If you were a reasonably wealthy businessman. Your business is solid and profitable enough while you continue to devote the hours to it. You have a lump of a daughter who is too lazy to go and find a job - not least because you pay her £700 a week just to keep her in clothes, i-phones, a car, and a 'clubbing' lifestyle.

If money was becoming just a little bit tight, why wouldn't you put her in charge of cleaning the house, doing the shopping etc. Why would you bring in a Philippino to do it?

This way you are helping to pay the wages of all the people who provide the clothes and clubs this girl frequents whilst also paying for someone's education & health care in the Philippines.

Now he has a pension my brother is returning to his wife in the Philippines, saving the cost of HB & health care. So outsourcing pensioners to warmer climates overseas is not such a bad idea at all.

Where immigrants are concerned there are many who are highly qualified and do pay a reasonable amount of tax. These then go back to their own countries some time in the future. This is the type of immigrant that should be encouraged rather than those who disappear and drain resources.

kabayiri

chewmylegoff wrote: »

only if you are comparing migrant and non-migrant workers who are doing exactly the same job, otherwise it probably just shows is that a higher % of migrant workers are doing lower skilled jobs.

Yes, agreed. Any information gathering needs refinement.

There are people who say UK labour costs are too high to remain competitive. It would be useful to know if one of the aims of immigration policy is to lower these labour costs.

If this was the case, doesn't this suggest taxation revenue per capita would fall to make us competitive?

Loughton_Monkey

kabayiri wrote: »

.....There are people who say UK labour costs are too high to remain competitive. It would be useful to know if one of the aims of immigration policy is to lower these labour costs.....

Aren't you confusing the complete shambles, miscommunication, and random administration of our UK borders with "aims of immigration policy"?

If the Governments -over the last 15 years or so - know what they are doing with immigration then I think we should be told.

N1AK

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes, agreed. Any information gathering needs refinement.

There are people who say UK labour costs are too high to remain competitive. It would be useful to know if one of the aims of immigration policy is to lower these labour costs.

If this was the case, doesn't this suggest taxation revenue per capita would fall to make us competitive?

You'll never get data that satisfies people who have already made up their mind. You can't account for the differences in government policy if there hadn't been immigration (more/less money to spend and how would they have used it), the differences in policy and effect they would have etc especially retrospectively where people will naturally choose the best option not taken, now they know it is best.

You can probably get a pretty good answer to the question of whether a typical additional immigrant will be a net contributor or not to the economy but as has been shown here in minutes this can be pretty much ignored just by asking questions a decent analyst would know couldn't be answered.

kabayiri

N1AK wrote: »

...
You can probably get a pretty good answer to the question of whether a typical additional immigrant will be a net contributor or not to the economy but as has been shown here in minutes this can be pretty much ignored just by asking questions a decent analyst would know couldn't be answered.

I know only of the immigrants I come across, and it would be dangerous to rely on a small sample set.

They often seem polite and work hard, but these are low paying roles. They won't generate much tax income.

But maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. Are we hoping these people are driven to set up their own companies, in an entrepreneurial drive shadowing the mass immigration which occurred in the US years back ?

Saying immigrants will 'save us' is a leap of faith, and deserves a more detailed breakdown as to how.

System

olly300 wrote: »

It's too late for the current crop of upcoming pensioners.

There needs to be at least 11 years warning before the current pension age for people in their fifties to plan their retirement income and transition into retirement.

And while the government has changed the law so everyone under 46 works longer there is simply not enough of us.

Hence why immigration is needed in the short term.

Then give every would-be pensioner over 46 an option:

1) Compulsory deferment of pension
2) Maintain pension age, but reduce the entitlement
3) Find a designated immigrant, who will board in your house, and hand over part of his earnings to you so that you can retire.

olly300

kabayiri wrote: »

Saying immigrants will 'save us' is a leap of faith, and deserves a more detailed breakdown as to how.

That wouldn't work as many immigrants don't fit into neat categories and collection methods are crude. The figures also specifically exclude British passport holders who only lived in the UK for a few years i.e. as a young child and were educated abroad but come back here for jobs in their 20s and 30s.

Some of the figures also include people who came here as young children and have few if any memories of the country they came from.

For example the number of children born to mothers not born in the UK is on the increase and has been for a few years, yet I went to infant school with children who weren't born in the UK. Now these people are fully integrated and are working, some of them in highly skilled jobs yet according to statistics because they weren't born in the UK they count in these immigration statistics.

olly300

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Then give every would-be pensioner over 46 an option:

1) Compulsory deferment of pension
2) Maintain pension age, but reduce the entitlement
3) Find a designated immigrant, who will board in your house, and hand over part of his earnings to you so that you can retire.

The government have passed laws so people don't have to retire at a compulsory age but this wasn't in place until about 2 years ago. This isn't enough time for someone around 55 to plan.

I also know for some work place schemes they give people 2 options on pension payments. One if you retire at the date you expected when you first joined the scheme, and the other if you retire at the new state pension age for your age group. The latter means you get a bigger pension but at a later date.

There are also more and more people pass their retirement age working. However due to age discrimination, even though it's illegal, older workers are often forced out of their jobs and can't find a new one. Even government agencies themselves have been caught discriminating against people in their late 40s, so there is no hope for the private sector.

Plus there is the issue of older workers in physically active occupations who simply are not fit enough to keep on working. There is often nothing wrong with them mentally but due to the jobs they are trained/skilled in it's difficult and near impossible for some of them to find alternative employment and not everyone can set up as self-employed.

dktreesea

wotsthat wrote: »

The evidence I see in local towns & cities in the midlands is that huge numbers of low skilled immigrants are being/ have been imported.
....

Let's fill skills gaps by all means but I find it objectionable that I'm meant to help subsidise a Polish worker to clean a solicitors office in central London. If we didn't have to subsidise low paying employers then we might see a few of them relocating to other parts of the country.

I have no problem with our taxes subsidising low paid work, provided the other side of that equation also holds - if you don't work, you don't get any benefits. So something akin to what you have in Germany, Spain or places in the United States like New York.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Turning back to immigration, I think some vague message has gone down saying "only let in specialists and wealth makers". Now Romanians and Bulgarians do not currently have the right to come and work in 'ordinary' occupations. But they come in as "Self Employed" - quite legally. Immigration Department and Government pat each others' backs because we have 75,000 extra self employed (i.e. entrepreneurs here). Turns out they are bed-makers earning only £2 an hour (quite legal because they are not entitled to minimum wage). It's pathetic.

Which rather sounds like the government is intent on bringing in as many foreign adult workers as they can squeeze in to force down the minimum wage without actually having to reduce it directly. So, for example, they don't look too hard for the hundreds of thousands of illegals in Britain. Anyone for an Indian labourer? Going rate? £10 a day. Or how about work for the dole? The idea that a government should supply slave labour to the likes of Tesco is outrageous. There's a cafe near to us that only has self employed workers. They enter into a contract for the work, i.e. they bid for it, and the cafe owner takes the lowest bid. They still have to be experienced, have good references and the like, but they are self employed. They keep their tips. If you want to work for the hairdresser you have to rent a chair at the salon.

dktreesea

olly300 wrote: »

For example the number of children born to mothers not born in the UK is on the increase and has been for a few years, yet I went to infant school with children who weren't born in the UK. Now these people are fully integrated and are working, some of them in highly skilled jobs yet according to statistics because they weren't born in the UK they count in these immigration statistics.

The total number of NINo registrations to adult overseas
nationals entering the UK in 2011/12 was 601 thousand, a fall of

104 thousand (15%) on the previous year.
(Source: DWP, http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/niall/nino_allocations_aug12.pdf)

That's adults, presumably of working age! And just the ones here legally. How many of those people will go on to be self employed, just so they can get work at the real rate, maybe only £2 an hour, rather than the minimum wage rate that is great in theory but in practice is not paid across a wide range of industries. Even our council recently advertised for dance instructors, as in you have to tender for the work, so not a job as such. One of the successful tenders was for 40p per student per class. Even if ten students came, that's only £4 an hour. But maybe he/she didn't care, because they are self employed and the taxpayer will top up the shortfall.

That tenderer could we be an immigrant, fully integrated into our society and working, but if the government really wants to go down this route - and they clearly do if even local government is getting in on the act, then they should do the no work, no benefits side fo the policy as well and extend what they currently have for NEETs (i.e. no entitlement to benefits) to the whole of the population.

There's plenty of work to go around. There must be, otherwise how could we possibly absorb 600,000 adult aged migrants in one year? It just isn't paid as well as the minimum wage.

I don't mind paying benefits to top people up, provided they work full time. What I object to is paying out massive sums of people who choose just to work the 16 hours minimum to qualify for WTC. Or people who choose not to work at all, because the pay is so poor. It's not the costs of pensioners we need saving from. It's the cost of the work shy working age people.