Net migration down nearly 100,000 over the year

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And don't cry false tears for other countries Graham, when you know full well you just don't want immigrants here because you think it'll cheapen house prices, and damn the cost to society and the economy.

This doesn't even make sense.

How would putting an end to open door immigration today make houses cheaper?

It wouldn't. The people who are here are here.

So intent are you in just insulting others who don't agree with you, you're not even making any sense.

Percy1983

Lets see if I can explain how me end to the pyramid scheme can work.

As you say there is less people per pension, but what if those pensioners had actually put enough away for themselves?

Like wise my generation outs enough in to look after ourselves etc.

Essentially the current system works by taking more out than you put in as there will be are larger number below the pick up the bill.

The problem is the current system means each generation to be bigger than the last... news flash the countries land mass isn't getting any bigger. Its not sustainable.

GhIFA

I could afford that. Sure, my standard of living would decline as would my disposable income. I may have to re-look at my priorities.

But, I could afford it.

As could you.

Ok, so we'd all have less disposable income to spend on goods and services.

Companies could stop hiding behind the benefits system and pay a living wage.

And at the same time as we have to rein in our spending on goods and services you want the companies that supply them to increase costs despite the reduction in their revenues - you do see the fundamental flaw in that idea don't you?

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's all fine, BUT, in practice....wheres the new infrastructure from the last 10 years?

Well, in the town where I live, two new schools, one very large hospital, new park and ride schemes and investment in the rail service to provide more capacity (despite your suggestion that it's "standing room only" I never fail to get a seat on the commute unless there is a problem in the service, which is actually a pretty rare occurence). In the wider county, two new major trunk roads. Add to that further around the South East, the HS1 rail link, various schemes to widen the M25, along with the fact that there's a pretty big tunnel being bored beneath London at the moment for Crossrail. You discount the Olympics, but this has resulted in extensions to various tube lines and other upgrades, along with similar to the DLR, the East London extension of the Overground rail network, along with other services and amenities in East London.

So all in all I can see the results of quite a bit of infrastructure investment over the past 10 years (and that's just off the top of my head) just in the areas of the country where I spend the most time - I'm sure people in other areas could do likewise.

ruggedtoast

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/

You have made a completely erroneous inference about fraud from that article. It actually says 'credibility'.

I am happy to take you seriously on a debate about immigration but you need to start with facts not fallacies.

India has always had a 70 % visa refusal rate that doesn't mean the people who are rejected are criminals.

The reason less students are coming from India is because less of the ones who legitimately qualify (eg, have money, English ability and good grades) are applying.

Because they think they aren't welcome.

I'm unsure why you think this is a cause for rejoicing and can only assume you haven't thought through what you are saying.

ILW

Percy1983 wrote: »

Lets see if I can explain how me end to the pyramid scheme can work.

As you say there is less people per pension, but what if those pensioners had actually put enough away for themselves?

Like wise my generation outs enough in to look after ourselves etc.

Essentially the current system works by taking more out than you put in as there will be are larger number below the pick up the bill.

The problem is the current system means each generation to be bigger than the last... news flash the countries land mass isn't getting any bigger. Its not sustainable.

Immigration is simply a pass the problem to the next generation solution. Whilst in the meantime it will get even worse for the countries that are losing many of their own younger workers.

Graham_Devon

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You have made a completely erroneous inference about fraud from that article. It actually says 'credibility'.

It actually says "abuse".

Abuse / fraud. Same thing. You going the way of trying to make things stick too?

Not like you to struggle!

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Lets see if I can explain how me end to the pyramid scheme can work.

As you say there is less people per pension, but what if those pensioners had actually put enough away for themselves?

Like wise my generation outs enough in to look after ourselves etc.

Essentially the current system works by taking more out than you put in as there will be are larger number below the pick up the bill.

The problem is the current system means each generation to be bigger than the last... news flash the countries land mass isn't getting any bigger. Its not sustainable.

For the Percy scheme to work we need a cut off where one generation saves fully for their own retirements AND in the meantime they keep paying for current and future pensioners too.

It'll be tough to start with because, although we didn't really have a baby boom, the number of new pensioners is going to peak and they'll be living 10 - 15 years longer than expected when they were born.

I think 1983 should be the cut-off - anyone born in or after 1983 should not be entitled to a future state pension or any health benefits in retirement.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wotsthat wrote: »

For the Percy scheme to work we need a cut off where one generation saves fully for their own retirements AND in the meantime they keep paying for current and future pensioners too..

The Percy scheme is the same as the Hamish scheme is the same as the Government scheme.

What Percy has failed to understand is you can't flick a switch and make it happen overnight, or you kill the economy.

It will take decades to implement.

And during those decades you need immigration.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

Immigration is simply a pass the problem to the next generation solution. .

Not at all.

It's a buy yourself some time while you fix the problem solution.

The alternative is societal and economic collapse.

So there really is no alternative.