Net migration down nearly 100,000 over the year

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

Shall we call it a sky scraper, as each floor is the same size, as you all go up in the lift the next floor is the same again.

Unfortunately nobody put in decent foundations for continued economic prosperity. Most of the good bits were sold off just to get us to the second floor. We don't have a mechanism to get any higher. It is slowly being dismantled instead.

kabayiri

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This evidence is interesting....

Waffle.....

The fall in visa applications has come from 2 countries. The 2 countries with statistically the highest amount of fraudulent appliacations.

Unless we want to celebrate fraud, surely this is a good thing?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/

Sorting out fraud is a good thing, and a definite vote winner. That is why it will continue. Politicians will be desperate to win favour from the public come the next election.

CLAPTON

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am pretty sure I said stop the pyramid scheme, can't remember saying turn it upside down.

Here is an idea:

How about a system where each generation puts in the same as they take out? rather than taking more than they put in as the next generation will be bigger so can cover it?

Shall we call it a sky scraper, as each floor is the same size, as you all go up in the lift the next floor is the same again.

what does that mean?

in what way do you mean 'put in' and what does 'take out'?

as we can't renew coal or gas I assume you mean we ought to immediately stop their use.

do you mean the population must be exactly the same when we die as when we were born

if a generation makes several inventions; do these need to die with them so the equation is equal.

or do you mean in cash terms and ignore inventions, discoveries

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just because I don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening, so that's why I'm asking for evidence that increased infrastructure and therefore capacity is delivered alongside an increase in immigration. After all, if you are going to state that as fact, you'd surely have some evidence of it?

Infrastructure spending has increased - I've provided evidence.

Population has increased - you've provided evidence.

Co-incidence? Governments love spending other people's money but do you think infrastructure spending would keep increasing if populations were falling. Do you think the M1 would be being widened if less people were expected to use it? What was the M25 built for? The second severn crossing? Why did the first severn bridge get built - maybe they should have kept using the ferry that transported 10 cars at a time.

So no you haven't put the infrastructure argument to bed. It's bleeding obvious - government spending is funded by the population - more people means more people to share the burden.

The main arguments I see a) are the people being allowed in making a contribution (no not always), b) is population growth sustainable as a long term economic model (no), and is immigration making us happier (not always). There's plenty wrong with the immigration system - just stopping immigration is just a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and small minded to say the least.

BTW do you have any evidence that there's no link between immigration/ population growth and infrastructure spending. I assume as you started the thread, hung your hat on infrastructure spending and used the words 'good news indeed' that you'd be able to support this rather than expecting others to disprove it.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Infrastructure spending has increased - I've provided evidence.

Yes, and if you simply want to claim it's up, then you've done so.

BUT, do you not want to look any further into that? It's up £4bn over around 10 years. That's not even keeping pace with inflation.

If you just want to prove it's gone up, then job done. But you made a point that immigration brings infrastructure. I don't think that point has been proved by showing infrastructure spending has gone up significantly less than inflation over a decade.

A lot of what you are talking about is simple. It's not immigration fueling it. It's the changing world.

The victorians didn't build the rail infrastructure due to immigration. They built it due to advances in technology and changes in how the UK functioned. Same for roads anf the explosion in the car since the 50's. You can't just say "roads have been built, therefore thats linked to immigration". That's a complete nonsense. At the same time that roads have been built, rail lines have been axed. It's changing times. Not immigration.

And by the way....you talk about "just stopping immigration" not being the answer. I agree. NO ONE has stated this is the answer.

Open door immigration is what I am talking about. It's what we've had over the last decade. You keep trying to make out I'm against all immigration full stop to make your argument work. I'm not and you know I'm not.

wotsthat wrote: »

BTW do you have any evidence that there's no link between immigration/ population growth and infrastructure spending. I assume as you started the thread, hung your hat on infrastructure spending and used the words 'good news indeed' that you'd be able to support this rather than expecting others to disprove it.

No, but then I'm not the one who stated there was a link. YOU were. Secondly I have asked YOU for evidence of said infrastructure and your response is "do you have any evidence it doesn't exist".

Bouncing the question back is a good tactic, but quite see through. Just because I started the thread, it doesn't mean I have to disprove everything you decide to state as fact and cannot back up!

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you just want to prove it's gone up, then job done. But you made a point that immigration brings infrastructure. I don't think that point has been proved by showing infrastructure spending has gone up significantly less than inflation over a decade.

It's your thread Graham. You've taken a beating and have retreated to saying there's no link between immigration/ population and spending. Prove it.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's your thread Graham. You've taken a beating and have retreated to saying there's no link between immigration/ population and spending. Prove it.

LOL.

You must be stuck.

I started a thread, so, now I have to disprove anything you decide to state as fact...otherwise, as I started the thread, I'm wrong?

Rigggghhtttt.

I'm not quite sure you have got a grip of what debate means.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am pretty sure I said stop the pyramid scheme, can't remember saying turn it upside down.

Here is an idea:

How about a system where each generation puts in the same as they take out? rather than taking more than they put in as the next generation will be bigger so can cover it?

Shall we call it a sky scraper, as each floor is the same size, as you all go up in the lift the next floor is the same again.

OK....

50 years ago there were 5 workers for every pensioner.

In 2000 there were 3.5 workers for every pensioner.

By 2030 there will be around 2.8 workers for every pensioner.

But it's only going to be that 'many' (which is still woefully short) thanks to immigration in our lifetimes, and if we maintain recent net migration levels of around 200K per year.

Without all that immigration, it would be well under 2 workers for every pensioner, and the burden of aged care would crush the UK economy and the younger generation.

And by 2060 without that immigration, the pyramid would invert, and there would be several pensioners for every worker, which is an unimaginably nightmarish scenario economically and socially.

Now lets consider the implications of that.....

Without getting into any of that fiendishly complicated economics stuff, lets instead create a nice simple example of a young lad, we'll call him Percy, who is currently paying around a third of his income in tax.

So if young Percy were to earn around 30K a year, he'd pay 10K of it in taxes.

Now, lets also consider the case of a nice little old lady, we'll call her Nana, who is currently costing the UK government around 18K a year in NHS treatment, pensions, benefits, etc.

Now she has paid in her taxes for all her life, and that money went to care for people older than she was.

So now Percy and his generation pay in their money and it cares for her.

Fortunately for Percy, there are also two other nice young lads, we'll call them Graham and Vladimir, around to contribute to Nana's care, so he doesn't have to pay the full 18K himself. He only has to pay for 6K, out of the 10K he pays in taxes. And Graham and Vladimir pay the other 12K.

Now imagine what happens if Vladimir is sent home..... Or worse, if thanks to stricter immigration policies he never arrived.

Now Percy and Graham have to pay the full 18K for Nana's care by themselves, without Vladimir to chip in his share.

So Percy and Graham have to chip in an extra £3000 a year each, or 10% of their income, and their tax burden rises from 10K to 13K.

"But wait a minute" cries young Percy, "what if we just make it so that everyone is paying for themselves?"

"Then me and Graham don't have to pay for Nana, and we can send Vlad home. And then get rid of this damn pyramid scheme".

So then a nice man called Hamish asks Percy to add up what he thinks the costs would be of saving that 18K a year he'll need for the 20-30 years of his time as a pensioner, PLUS paying for the existing pensioners for the next 50 years until we get to the point it's self funding.

At which point Percy realises that saving up £500,000 to cover his own state pension, NHS and welfare costs would be completely impossible while ALSO paying for all the older people for the next few decades at current and projected ratio's of pensioners to workers.

And grudgingly accepts that we may need a few more Vladimirs to help out for a while...;)

kabayiri

Is this another Hamish fails to understand the progress of technology thread.

In the space of several decades hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost due to the force of progress (the much vaunted microchip).

That is going to be as nothing compared to the progress in the next 2 decades.

I'm not quite sure what this massive army of workers are going to be doing in 2030.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Is this another Hamish fails to understand the progress of technology thread.

No, but it's rapidly turning into a 'kabayiri fails to understand that machines don't pay taxes thread.'

In the space of several decades hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost due to the force of progress (the much vaunted microchip).

That is going to be as nothing compared to the progress in the next 2 decades.

I'm not quite sure what this massive army of workers are going to be doing in 2030.

It doesn't matter what they're doing.

We need to prevent the ratio between workers and dependents from continuing to fall, as it is already reaching the point of being unsustainably low.

People have been forecasting for decades that we'd all be working 3 day weeks by now thanks to technology making our lives easier, and there being a lower requirement for workers.

The exact opposite has happened in reality. More people work now, and for longer hours, than they used to.