Why are savings rates on the floor?

doughnutmachine

Gadfium wrote: »

"Argument from ignorance" is a logical fallacy, not a slur. You said "On the plus side the EU gives us….. ehhhhmmm well, I can’t really think of anything."
That is an argument from ignorance. Your lack of knowledge does not mean that no evidence exists.


How many exactly?


There's a hell of a lot of UK citizens doing exactly the same too. Let me give you a real-world example. My partner works in the NHS. She is currently nursing a UK citizen (born and bred here). This woman is 32 years old and is dying of alcoholism. She has been in and out of the ward constantly since she was 27. She lives on benefits and has never worked.
Her mother died in the same ward 3 months ago. She died of internal bleeding caused by chronic alcoholism. In the last 2 years of her life she spent about 13 months on the ward. Neither she or her alcoholic partner worked and both supported themselves on benefits. She died at 51 and her funeral was paid for by the State.
The daughter has a 2 year old girl who is suffering a number of conditions caused by her mother's insistence on drinking in pregnancy (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). The State will step in and care for this child and provide for support for the rest of her life.
At any one time, my partner's ward will generally have about 10 chronic alcoholics/drug dependants in there, all with similar stories.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but personally I would prefer to have a hundred, a thousand, a million immigrants coming into this country. At least a sizeable proportion of those will find employment, pay taxes, rear families and contribute something back to this society.

So, if you are going to bang the drum about "clogging up the NHS" then you must also wish to prevent bone idle, lazy UK citizens from accessing the system. Especially if they have never paid a penny into the system. Or would you just restrict access to people with a different passport?


You will agree that if they have money then they must have earned it? And if they earned it, then they must have paid taxes? And paid rent or a mortgage? And bought food, paid utilities, bought from our shops? Whats wrong with that, exactly?

ehhhmmm ok, so your argument that immigration is a good thing is basically "some british people are wasters, so it's ok to let immigrants in"

i think a key argument against immigration is that low skill immigrants take out more from the taxpayer than they pay in.only something like the top 15% of taxpayers pay more in tax than they take out. so letting in people that don't speak english and get low pay jobs costs the taxpayer money.

you've still not presented any arguments as to why the EU benefits the UK.... go on, just one..... and saying "go and research it yourself" is not an argument... it suggests you dont know why the EU is such a good thing...

Gadfium

doughnutmachine wrote: »

ehhhmmm ok, so your argument that immigration is a good thing is basically "some british people are wasters, so it's ok to let immigrants in"

Isn't that the argument from UKIP? "Some immigrants are wasters therefore immigration is bad". I listened to Christine Hamilton on R4 on Saturday. She came up with a statistic that 40% of Bulgarians have been arrested for serious offences since 2008. Yet when challenged she could not back that up and when she was subjected to laughs and questioning she backed away from the claim.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i think a key argument against immigration is that low skill immigrants take out more from the taxpayer than they pay in.only something like the top 15% of taxpayers pay more in tax than they take out. so letting in people that don't speak english and get low pay jobs costs the taxpayer money.

Now you're moving the goalposts.
And that argument would also apply to UK citizens that are in low paid jobs. What do you suggest that you do about them?

doughnutmachine wrote: »

ehhhmmm ok, so your
you've still not presented any arguments as to why the EU benefits the UK

And you have yet to show anything that supports your original claims.
I'm waiting for you to show that Norway and Switzerland's economy is doing well because they are not in the EU.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

ehhhmmm ok, so your
you've still not presented any arguments as to why the EU benefits the UK.... go on, just one.....

Here's one. Europe is undergoing the longest war free period for many many years (probably hundreds of years). The European Union came about as a direct result of the desire to prevent the sort of nationalism that brought about the devastation of two major world wars in the 20th Century, as well as countless wars before that. That benefits the UK directly, both on a moral, social and economic level.

Here's one for you. Do you really think that in a general election that UKIP will get anything other than marginal seats (if any at all)? Remeber the turnout in the recent elections was something like 31%. Of that pitiful amount UKIP got 25%. Thats 7% of the voting population. UKIP are nothing more than a protest vote, they have no coherent policies and in some cases, seem to attract, thinly veiled racists.

doughnutmachine

Gadfium wrote: »

Isn't that the argument from UKIP? "Some immigrants are wasters therefore immigration is bad". I listened to Christine Hamilton on R4 on Saturday. She came up with a statistic that 40% of Bulgarians have been arrested for serious offences since 2008. Yet when challenged she could not back that up and when she was subjected to laughs and questioning she backed away from the claim.


Now you're moving the goalposts.
And that argument would also apply to UK citizens that are in low paid jobs. What do you suggest that you do about them?


And you have yet to show anything that supports your original claims.
I'm waiting for you to show that Norway and Switzerland's economy is doing well because they are not in the EU.


Here's one. Europe is undergoing the longest war free period for many many years (probably hundreds of years). The European Union came about as a direct result of the desire to prevent the sort of nationalism that brought about the devastation of two major world wars in the 20th Century, as well as countless wars before that. That benefits the UK directly, both on a moral, social and economic level.

Here's one for you. Do you really think that in a general election that UKIP will get anything other than marginal seats (if any at all)? Remeber the turnout in the recent elections was something like 31%. Of that pitiful amount UKIP got 25%. Thats 7% of the voting population. UKIP are nothing more than a protest vote, they have no coherent policies and in some cases, seem to attract, thinly veiled racists.

i think the argument from UKIP is more "we should be a little more selective who we let into the country". you do believe in at least some immigration controls? or should we just open the flood gates?

the point i was making about norway and switzerland is that countries can have modern successful economies outside the EU. you must admit that they are doing better than spain, ireland, portugal etc....

well done for presenting an argument for the EU, but do you really think war would break out if the UK left europe?

the ukip wants to reduce white immigrants from east europe, if "white" british people vote for them how can they be racists?

Gadfium

You-kip wrote: »

A protest group as you call it means the people of the UK obviously wants change.

Guess what party used to be called the protest group and are now in the coalition running the country along side the Tories.

Answers on a postcard??

That'd be the same party that IMHO will cease to exist as any form of meaningful political force after the 2015 GE. I am sure that the Lib Dem party-planners and strategists will know exactly what happened to the Tories in Scotland and see that the same fate awaits them. IMHO, the only chance that they have is to throw Clegg to the lions sometime next year in the hope that a a big scalp will save their political skins.
And UKIP do not speak for "the people of the UK". Let me remind you that they got 25% of 31% of the electorate in the recent local elections. Thats a very very small part of "the people of the UK"

doughnutmachine wrote: »

you do believe in at least some immigration controls?

Actually I do.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

the point i was making about norway and switzerland is that countries can have modern successful economies outside the EU. you must admit that they are doing better than spain, ireland, portugal etc....

That is not the way that you presented your point though.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

you must admit that they are doing better than spain, ireland, portugal etc....

Only an idiot would suggest otherwise. I'm still waiting for you to present any sort of meaningful argument that their success is directly related to not being part of the EU which IS the point that you originally made. Germany seems to be doing fine and that's part of the EU.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

well done for presenting an argument for the EU, but do you really think war would break out if the UK left europe?

I do not know why you would jump to that conclusion. That was not the point that I made and you very well know that.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

the ukip wants to reduce white immigrants from east europe, if "white" british people vote for them how can they be racists?

Racism is not solely dependant on skin colour.

doughnutmachine

Gadfium wrote: »

Only an idiot would suggest otherwise. I'm still waiting for you to present any sort of meaningful argument that their success is directly related to not being part of the EU which IS the point that you originally made. Germany seems to be doing fine and that's part of the EU.

I do not know why you would jump to that conclusion. That was not the point that I made and you very well know that.

Racism is not solely dependant on skin colour.

perhaps if you look again at what i said "So perhaps the lesson to be learned is that countries don’t have to be in the EU to be doing well". i never said the likes of norway was rich because they weren't in the EU...

you said that an advantage of the EU was that it had brought peace. do you have any proof that it was the EU that prevented war in europe over the last 50 years? is it not equally plausible that the major countries had just learned their lessons and were sick of bloodshed?

the classical definition of racism is based on race....

so the UK gives europe billions a year and the advantages are we get rid of some duff politicians and it might stop war in europe*

*obviously excluding yugoslavia, ethnic genecide on the EUs doorstep and we need the yanks to sort it.... the EU never prevented that war.

Gadfium

doughnutmachine wrote: »

perhaps if you look again at what i said "So perhaps the lesson to be learned is that countries don’t have to be in the EU to be doing well". i never said the likes of norway was rich because they weren't in the EU...

My mistake. I mixed your comment up with Youkip's. Please accept my apologies.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

you said that an advantage of the EU was that it had brought peace. do you have any proof that it was the EU that prevented war in europe over the last 50 years? is it not equally plausible that the major countries had just learned their lessons and were sick of bloodshed?

Yes. Schumann first floated the idea of the ECSC and declared that he wanted to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible." Read up on the Schumann Declaration. The ECSC was formed directly from the Schumann Declaration.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

is it not equally plausible that the major countries had just learned their lessons and were sick of bloodshed?

Plausible? Yes
Factually correct? No.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

the classical definition of racism is based on race....

Thank you. I already knew that.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

so the UK gives europe billions a year and the advantages are we get rid of some duff politicians and it might stop war in europe*

That's your definition. it's not one that I recognise or agree with. I was asked to provide one single reason. let me remind you:

doughnutmachine wrote: »

you've still not presented any arguments as to why the EU benefits the UK.... go on, just one.....

As for duff politicians. LOL...we sure have plenty of those :rotfl:Go and read the UKIP website for a few good examples (assuming that you can navigate the broken links and spelling mistakes that litter the site). Bad politicians are not unique to the UKIP, the UK or even the EU. Lets also remember that Mr. Farage lost an appeal against a fine for his little rant in the EU parliament. Descending to ad hominem attacks belongs in the gutter.

Gadfium

By the way, we have massively hijacked this thread. my apologies to the OP.
If this debate is to continue can I suggest that this thread is probably not he correct place?

doughnutmachine

Gadfium wrote: »

That's your definition. it's not one that I recognise or agree with. I was asked to provide one single reason. let me remind you:

yeah fair point, so to recap:

The UK gives billions a year to the EU, an organisation that has not had it's accounts approved for 18 years due to irregularities. The UK has also given most of it's fishing grounds to the EU, and Spanish and French fishing boats take was previously "british" fish.

millions of east europeans have come to the UK, they typically get low skill jobs and take more from the taxpayer than they pay in tax. east european kids require special help at schools to overcome their lack of english skills. The NHS also requires translators when an east european goes to a hospital. all these additional services cost the taxpayer large sums for translators/ extra teachers etc.

So far the ONE argument that the EU is good for the UK is that the EU has prevented any wars in europe (apart from yugoslavia of course). Perhaps the EU has also prevented wars in north and south america as well?

i've enjoyed our "tet a tet" but you've certainly not convinced me that the UKIP are wrong on their policies.... in fact you've made me reach for my cheque book....

bowlhead99

doughnutmachine wrote: »

Norway seems to be doing alright? Switzerland also has a GNP that knocks the UK for 6? So perhaps the lesson to be learned is that countries don’t have to be in the EU to be doing well?

Switzerland has a strong economy. It's a small country, with only one city over 200k population and only about 4 million workers. GDP per head has a chance to get pretty high when there aren't many of you, and you avoided getting too involved in the war (apart from helping to store Nazi gold reserves), and you are bordered by 5 countries with no water in the way, and your population is so diverse it speaks 3+ official languages on top of all your business community speaking English. Oh and you have a great reputation for your banking secrecy, and low personal taxes.

I'm sure UKIP would love us to speak 3 languages - perhaps we could add Polish as our second language, as there's half a million with that as their first language according to the last census, and then perhaps some south Asian languages because the UKIP guys love that diversity. What's that? 20% of the population being resident foreigners or temporary foreign workers? Works for Switzerland, so perhaps we'll see Farage change his tune there too.

Norway? Again a small country, decent GDP for its size, half their exports are oil and gas. But is their success built on their resources, infrastructure and education, or is it because they aren't in the Eurozone, or is it because the don't get so many immigrants from poor countries in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe who dare to send money home? Hmm there's a lot to think about.

China? A million millionaires and a trade surplus of hundreds of billions every year. The USA? Biggest economy in the world. And other countries are stronger than ours in one way or another too. Wow, I've got it... these places must have their success because they aren't in Europe! Brazil - great footballers! And not in Europe either! Well clearly we now know which way we should vote if asked. Just don't bring up Germany as an example of an economy in Europe that actually does pretty well.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

ignorance? it is a matter of fact that the UK pays a lot more into the EU than we get out.

You know what, as a hard working thirty-something professional in London I pay more taxes than the average twenty-something man in North Wales even earns! Screw that guy!

London as a micro-economy puts more taxes into the system than it takes out. Manchester, Aberdeen, Belfast, Scarborough, Dudley, Swansea, Newport ? I could name 500 UK towns with lower GDP than the Square Mile, perhaps they should be excommunicated because I'd rather see my tax dollars hard at work for myself and my friends - not helping others!

What should we do - build a big wall and vapourize everyone who's not on my side of it? It's the only way to be sure!
~~~
Or perhaps 'being human' plays a part in our life choices and if I'm going to pay into the system for someone in Smethwick to take out, maybe I could also support Seville? After all, the Spanish produce some stuff that I want - I love them oranges - and even if some of them are unemployed at the moment, they have 50 million people who might buy something I want to sell - products or services - without me relying on learning to speak Chinese or shipping it 5000 miles away to the next highest bidder in San Francisco.

In the same way, I don't really know the guy in the West Midlands as an individual, but I quite like the fact that when he was employed he helped to maintain that highway that I sometimes use when I travel to visit relatives Up North, or a haulage company uses to deliver a nice sofa to a friend whom I might visit and be glad of a comfy seat. Today I help you, and in some way tomorrow you help me.

Is this just hippy claptrap or should I really just shut myself off and kick the immigrants out and stop subsidizing Johnny Foreigner? Decisions Decisions. Ah wait a moment, my salary would go down if my boss has a higher bill from the office cleaners because they couldn't employ Romanians and had to pay the plucky Brits £20 an hour for the same work because they ain't gettin out of bed for minimum wage. Self interest is the way forward, that's what UKIP want - the self interest of the British Man.

So speaking as one of those, out of self interest I say keep those immigrants please, and keep Europe (albeit at a safe distance), because many of my company's clients are European domiciled investment managers and many of their investors are big UK, US and European institutions who want to deploy capital across the breadth of Europe, including to the UK, with as few barriers as possible.

One could probably articulate this better and reference it to sound economic theory. If I could be bothered, I would. I suspect it would be lost on Doughnut Machine who doesn't come across as someone with a formal education in the subject.

Gadfium wrote: »

By the way, we have massively hijacked this thread. my apologies to the OP.
If this debate is to continue can I suggest that this thread is probably not he correct place?

True, but this thread was over 2+ months ago and just got restarted this weekend by a teenager who's having fun opening up old threads to make inane comments (I'm looking at you Iamalondoner).

We could probably take it to the debate house prices and the economy board. I never go there because it's full of people engaging in fruitless debate without being able to change anyone's mind, when I'm trying to give up internetting and go to bed, and I don't want to get dragged in...

Gadfium

As Churchill one said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"
I do not agree with your summary and you have yet to supply a single jot of evidence to support your claims.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

So far the ONE argument that the EU is good for the UK is that the EU has prevented any wars in europe

One point is what you asked for. One point is what I gave you. If you want more, then there are many far better qualified people than I to give them to you. But I can fill a page if you want and I can be bothered. The fact that you cannot is down to you (again, an argument from ignorance or an appeal to incredulity won't cut it. They are logical fallacies).

The one point that I gave you is a very powerful one though, You will, of course, agree that the Schumann Declaration had, as a central tenant, the aim to prevent a Europe-engulfing war and to make war between member states impossible. In that respect it has been spectacularly successful. As a direct result of that, a state of peace has existed within Europe. Given Britain's involvement in the last two World Wars, both of which started in European countries, the loss of British lives and the virtual bankruptcy of the country afterwards you will, I am sure, concede that point that the European Union has had a dramatic beneficial effect on the UK.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

apart from yugoslavia of course

That is a straw man argument. Yugoslavia was not a member state nor a signatory to the agreement.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

Perhaps the EU has also prevented wars in north and south america as well?

That's handwaving. If you think that it adds to your argument then please explain.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

i've enjoyed our "tet a tet" but you've certainly not convinced me that the UKIP are wrong on their policies.... in fact you've made me reach for my cheque book....

I'm not sure why you appear to be labouring under the apprehension that my role is to convince you of anything. That's your role. In my opinion UKIP's policies (where they exist) are not convincing to a sceptical mind.

I'm glad you enjoyed the debate. Again I apologise to the OP for the massive thread hijack.
Have a good evening