UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

market forces are thwarted by government rules

market forces can easily build enough houses for everybody

Indeed we could. Served us well after the war. Homes for heroes and all that.






.

We could even have a nice place by the sea. if we got rid of all that red tape

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

We didn't go out and 'hire' these Eastern Block immigrants.

They came of their own accord because they are now part of the EU.

Without the fall of the USSR they wouldn't have come and there is no evidence that similar numbers would have come from non - EU countries.

Not all immigrants are bad for the economy (I'm not), and immigrants in general aren't bad for the UK's finances, as we'd need to find the labour from somewhere, and this would put extra pressure on our schools, hospitals etc if these children were UK-born.

If we can gain young, experienced and suitable labour from abroad, as a reasonable cost, then this will help the UK in the long run, as the UK won't have spent £60k educating them; their home governments will have.

The basic arithmetic of the current demographic situation is reasonably well documented but of course is a projection based on many assumptions.

The OBR 'conclusion' that we need 7 million additional immigrants is an opinion based on a set of assumptions that may or may not be true.

e.g. suppose the older people choose to continue working much longer than the OBR projections?

I think it's more a case of people not wanting to work later, but having to due to financial circumstances.

I read something last week regarding early retirement/unemployment, and many are flocking to the likes of Bulgaria, as their JSA/State pension is affordable to live on. The JSA rule is complex, but must be paid to British nationals at UK rates, according to EU law.

I drove into Northern Bulgaria last week, and there are more UK-plated cars than Bulgarian-plated in some of the villages, which suggests that there is an output from the UK in some way.

maybe our existing population decides to produce a lot more kids

This will cause additional costs (and presumably additional debt) with the strain on schools/hospitals I mentioned earlier.

in any event we don't need more immigrants at the moment

What we need, is immigrants looking to get into business, to employ.

I'm a Georgian-born (what was then the USSR) British national, whose company pumped £3.1m last month into the British economy in general, mainly through wages, taxes paid and musicians' earnings. This is on £8.2m of turnover for June.

We make use of British car dealerships for vehicle servicing, British (but Russian-owned) finance company for vehicle leasing, a British bank to hold large amounts of company cash in. As I said, not all immigrants are bad, and most of the perceptions are wrong.

CK

zagubov

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Indeed we could. Served us well after the war. Homes for heroes and all that.






.

We could even have a nice place by the sea. if we got rid of all that red tape

Looks like an Arcon Mk V to me. Indoor toilet, integrated plumbinjg, heating and assembled in a day.

Like a TARDIS, it was :beer:

What's not to like?

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Not all immigrants are bad for the economy (I'm not), and immigrants in general aren't bad for the UK's finances, as we'd need to find the labour from somewhere, and this would put extra pressure on our schools, hospitals etc if these children were UK-born.

If we can gain young, experienced and suitable labour from abroad, as a reasonable cost, then this will help the UK in the long run, as the UK won't have spent £60k educating them; their home governments will have.



I think it's more a case of people not wanting to work later, but having to due to financial circumstances.

I read something last week regarding early retirement/unemployment, and many are flocking to the likes of Bulgaria, as their JSA/State pension is affordable to live on. The JSA rule is complex, but must be paid to British nationals at UK rates, according to EU law.

I drove into Northern Bulgaria last week, and there are more UK-plated cars than Bulgarian-plated in some of the villages, which suggests that there is an output from the UK in some way.



This will cause additional costs (and presumably additional debt) with the strain on schools/hospitals I mentioned earlier.



What we need, is immigrants looking to get into business, to employ.

I'm a Georgian-born (what was then the USSR) British national, whose company pumped £3.1m last month into the British economy in general, mainly through wages, taxes paid and musicians' earnings. This is on £8.2m of turnover for June.

We make use of British car dealerships for vehicle servicing, British (but Russian-owned) finance company for vehicle leasing, a British bank to hold large amounts of company cash in. As I said, not all immigrants are bad, and most of the perceptions are wrong.

CK

I'm not arguing the case about individual immigrations being good or bad for the economy.

I don't support the idea we have no alternative to accepting 10-20 million new immmigrants.

We, as a country, have a real alternative to accepting such a huge flood that will change the make up of the country forever.

Native born Londoners are virtually a minority in their own city. It's now virtually impossible for a young Londoner to buy a property in London in the area they grew up in.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not arguing the case about individual immigrations being good or bad for the economy.

I don't support the idea we have no alternative to accepting 10-20 million new immmigrants.

I am with this view to a point.

I feel that the best way to sort the UK economy out would be to invite the £1m+ non-EU nationals looking to invest in UK businesses with open arms (possibly as a commercial joint venture with government), cut unemployment, cut government outgoings and reap the rewards.

If this could cut part of the outsourcing issue, and in particular the large contracts of foreign governments (like ATOS in the UK), and funnel the profits into the UK, this could be good for all.

It should also be noted that my own company was started with less than £10k, so we need to be looking at giving visas to certain persons under the £1m mark, that do have a viable business plan, and possibly putting the financial support in place to make it work for them (again, through government-owned equity)

This is the result of it in my home country, along with a deficit that's halved, a new Parliamentary building (with the old one becoming a hotel, as it was getting expensive to maintain), increased tourism and increased confidence in business. I'm hoping that now Ivanishvili/Georgian Dream have some power, this will continue to improve as a wider region.

Georgia's take on this has been one that the UK should consider, and the Norway-style raising of taxes, and pumping 70% of the extra tax collected now at, say, 20%, back out to low-income families in the 20% bracket, whilst keeping the remainder towards the deficit.

There are many ways to improve the economy, however no political party is going to get the nail perfectly on the head, without looking at the wider issues.

Native born Londoners are virtually a minority in their own city. It's now virtually impossible for a young Londoner to buy a property in London in the area they grew up in.

I do have a London accent (I lived in the UK from 1990-1999, then 2003-now), but to an extent, I can see what you mean.

doughnutmachine

I've never really understood why the UK needs all these workers from dirt poor countries to become richer? If the immigrants had a good education and good work ethic why are their countries so poor?

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's economically sound.

If you want to reduce the public debt, you need immigration on a massive scale to do it.

I have to say, the issue with this theory (which I understand) is that it either needs: -

1. Further population increased to support the larger pensionable age.
2. Immigrants to leave the country at pensionable age (when not working)
3. A reduction in the costs of the NHS and pensions, lowering the burdon of these costs.

I think we seriously need to consider that we do not receive a pension from the government and must provide for ourselves.
Naturally, this will need to be rolled out over a number of years as opposed to drawing a line in the sand.

kabayiri

Large scale immigration over recent years has masked the problem with people in UK who are difficult to place into work.

I really don't think we can afford to continue with the levels of economically inactive that we have. Modern technology means older people can work in some capacity well beyond retirement age.

We need to coerce more people back into work. Believe me. The costs associated with retraining people who have been long term unemployed are worrying. It's much better to get them back in earlier.

CKhalvashi

kabayiri wrote: »

We need to coerce more people back into work. Believe me. The costs associated with retraining people who have been long term unemployed are worrying. It's much better to get them back in earlier.

On an international level, though, even the unemployment we have now isn't that large.

What does concern me is the 'you won't take my benefit' types, as whilst I have no problem with providing welfare for those that genuinely need it, my issue comes further with those that have been on IB for a number of years as they're '18 and fancied a child'.

I keep drumming it on these forums with some of the stereotypical views expressed, that I was at uni when I had my two. The difference is that I also worked, and apart from CB until this year, I've not asked the British government (or any other government) to contribute a penny to my childrens care, other than the occasional NHS appointment (DD1 was born in Moscow, and DD2 in Kazan, so I even left the expensive part off the NHS's back)

On the other hand, those out of work for some time do have problems adjusting. We took two long-term unemployed into the team a few years back and whilst one is now in a management position, the other left after 2 weeks after 'not liking not getting home until 2am'. This is on £90 - tax per evening, personal use of a 9 seater van (band bus), and personal fuel paid by the company. Some don't know how lucky they are!

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

On an international level, though, even the unemployment we have now isn't that large.
...

It's not outright numbers though, it's the increase in that segment of claimants who have been out of work over a year or more.

Once they become disengaged from the workplace it's difficult and expensive to try and get them back in. Success rates of less than 5% are not uncommon.

I've been analysing some data in this area, and it wouldn't be right to make specific comment. It is clear however that there are more people than I would have imagined starting from a very very low base, on both a language and literacy basis. I do worry for some of these people.

We need a cultural shift towards what we see retirement as, what we see normal consumption as, working patterns, career breaks for retraining. The whole lot.

The idea that we carry on doing what we have been, just with lots more people, doesn't cut it for me.