UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

C_Mababejive

Havent read all the posts,just page #1

A few things occur to me;

a) why do we need so many immigrants when our legions of baby breeders are dropping kids all lover the place? Will they be future benefactors of taxed paid by the immigrants?

b) What work will all the immigrants do..are they still spinning the lie about polish plumbers?

c)Will there be screening to pick the most valueable immigrants?

d) We have lots of graduates pouring out of uni's who cant get jobs? what will they do?

No..the hidden agenda is to flood the country with cheap labour to further degrade to UK workforce ,to undermine their T&Cs and to hold them in fear. When you threaten a mans work,you control him like a bull with a ring through its nose.

doughnutmachine

tbh, I just don't believe that mass immigration boosts the living standards of British people. I cant see how low skill Asians/ east Europeans/ Africans pay more in tax than they take out. Only something like the top 20% of taxpayers are net contributors to the tax coffers. So I cant see how immigrants working on minimum wage are good for UK plc.

I honestly think letting in low skill people is an act of charity from the British Government.

Would any of the left wing liberals here really be happy sending their child to a school with a high percentage of non native English speakers?

Anyone watch "crimewatch" and see the amount of people the police are after with "foreign" names?

TruckerT

I have been following this thread intermittently, and the number of posters who are willing to accept the conclusions of the OBR report is close to zero. Some MSE posters are trained economists/statisticians, some are well-informed observers, and some are just troublemakers like me. So far as I know, no politician has spoken in support of the report.

So !!!!!! is the point of the OBR? Here is a paragraph from a document about the Charter for Budget Responsibility (the red highlights are mine):

The Charter is intended to enhance transparency. In relation to the government’s approach to fiscal policy, the Charter sets out the Treasury’s fiscal objectives, mandate for fiscal policy and the requirements for the contents of Budgets.
Second, the Charter enhances transparency in respect of the statutory remit of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR). The guidance relates to those functions given to the OBR as set out in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act. The Charter does not contain any guidance on the OBR’s methodology, in order to protect the independence of the OBR’s judgments. The Charter can and does, however, add clarity to the statutory remit, reflecting the particular nature of the OBR’s role as producer of the UK’s official forecast, a role which sets it apart from other fiscal councils.
Further information about the OBR can be found on the OBR website.



Is there anything wrong with this page?

Hopefully, the OBR will rapidly fade from view.

TruckerT

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

I have been following this thread intermittently, and the number of posters who are willing to accept the conclusions of the OBR report is close to zero..

That might be more of a judgement on the posters than the OBR.:)

Sampong

antrobus wrote: »

That might be more of a judgement on the posters than the OBR.:)

Or it might be that the OBR is just plain wrong and completely out of touch with day to day issues.

Cornucopia

doughnutmachine wrote: »

Anyone watch "crimewatch" and see the amount of people the police are after with "foreign" names?

I think you may have spotted something there.:wall:

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

That might be more of a judgement on the posters than the OBR.:)

It might be. But the very fact that it's you who needs to fall to this level of debate suggests not.

antrobus

Sampong wrote: »

Or it might be that the OBR is just plain wrong and completely out of touch with day to day issues.

For once I believe that TruckerT has a point when he refers to the "number of posters who are willing to accept the conclusions of the OBR report". This thread has largely consisted of people dismissing the OBR report out of hand simply because they don't like it.

It's perfectly possible that the OBR are wrong. But I have yet to see anyone on this thread even get close to advancing an argument why they are wrong.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It might be. But the very fact that it's you who needs to fall to this level of debate suggests not.

Yes, I know you don't like it. Your bete noire Hamish has once more produced some actual evidence that supports his particular point of view.:)

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, I know you don't like it. Your bete noire Hamish has once more produced some actual evidence that supports his particular point of view.:)

Everyone can do that. I've given a parliamentary report on it. Yet it's just ignored as irrelevant.

My point was that you don't appear to be able to debate it very well, other than calling others stupid....which funnily enough is what Hamish does too.

Sampong

antrobus wrote: »

For once I believe that TruckerT has a point when he refers to the "number of posters who are willing to accept the conclusions of the OBR report". This thread has largely consisted of people dismissing the OBR report out of hand simply because they don't like it.

As Graham says - he has previously posted a Parliamentary report on it, which is also dismissed, because people "don't like it" ans aren't "willing to accept it".

antrobus wrote: »

It's perfectly possible that the OBR are wrong. But I have yet to see anyone on this thread even get close to advancing an argument why they are wrong.

Other than pointing out the fact that is a clearly unsustainable model with striking similarities to a ponzi scheme.