UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

John_Pierpoint

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

Can anyone point at a home in the 4th picture that is openly displaying its asbestos problem?

Homes in the UK are not just rationed by planning permission, they are also rationed by "mortgage-ability"

Jaywick - when the criminals are released from prison with enough money to survive for 48 hours they have to find an address, against which to claim benefits - they get recommended to try Jaywick - how anyone can claim that taking the shanty town dwellers of one country and transferring them to another crowded island will solve anything, escapes me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303489/East-Jaywick-Life-seaside-deprived-village-England.html

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

It is interesting that, whilst allowing that statistics can be flawed, you are still happy to suggest that the world can be defined (and predicted) in statistical terms.

The guys from OBR who appear on TV look to me like wet-behind-the-ears highly-educated 20-somethings who have never served in the real world. Politicians know different, and, like MSE posters, there is a close-to-zero acceptance of the OBR's conclusions.

You say that we should read the report, but the OBR guys seem happy to go on TV and summarise their statistics in a short soundbite measured in seconds.

TruckerT

SFW.

The fact that it's difficult to plan for the future, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.

In essence the OBR report isn't saying anything new. It's just telling us that the UK has an ageing population, and that somebody's going to have to pick up the bill. Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and repeatedly intoning 'it's only numbers someone made up' ain't going to change any of that.

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

SFW.

The fact that it's difficult to plan for the future, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.

In essence the OBR report isn't saying anything new. It's just telling us that the UK has an ageing population, and that somebody's going to have to pick up the bill. Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and repeatedly intoning 'it's only numbers someone made up' ain't going to change any of that.

And basically what the OBR suggest will lead to the same problem within a couple of years.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and repeatedly ignoring the issue that it's a pyramid scheme which will alsways come to the same conclusion isn't going to change any of that.

Might sort you out though!

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And basically what the OBR suggest will lead to the same problem within a couple of years. ...

A "couple of years"? What are you talking about? The timescales involved are a lot longer than a couple of years!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...Sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and repeatedly ignoring the issue that it's a pyramid scheme which will alsways come to the same conclusion isn't going to change any of that. ...

Depends on the exact demographics.

If you had a population where the were 500,000 deaths every year and 500,000 births every year, then you'd have a balance between new entrants to the workforce and those retiring. However, if you had only 400,000 births every year, then eventually you would hit the problem that the working population was declining, and that the financial burden of paying for the retired was falling on fewer shoulders. You could fix that problem by importing an extra 100,000 workers from somewhere else. Since all you are doing is replacing those people that your existing population has failed to produce, there is no long term financial impact, and no pyramid scheme.

Obviously, the position in the UK is far more complex than that. Whether or not encouraging a particular level of immigration to the UK in order to fix the fiscal problem of an ageing population would simply defer the problem to a later date, I don't know. You'd have to work your way through the numbers. I would have thought it was just plain silly to assume anything.

Besides, as I've said here before, rejecting the solution to a problem, doesn't take away the problem.

John_Pierpoint

Britain currently has less than 2,000 people dying per working day;
and 2,000 being born per day 24/7.
Much of the rest of the world has vast amounts of under used labour - and I am not talking in other continents, just look at the unemployment figures for the Iberian peninsula.
Though I have a certain discomfort in employing under used and overqualified labour from overseas, Swiss style; I do think it is the best solution in an over populated planet.

I have personal experience of such a situation, when my widowed mother went down with a stroke, the NHS had demanded within days "Is she self funding" - ie get her out of here she is not our problem. I refused to cooperate with the "put her in a home", solution advocated by the system and returned her to her own home with the contracted care of economic migrants fleeing Mr Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

It was a learning experience for all involved; but I realised I was supporting extended families in an economy where £5 (Those were petro £s) in the wrong hands could produce a "lost weekend" bender out there).

Quite what we do with our own uneducated, no initiative, unemployables, I don't know.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Still relevant...

Bantex_2

If we were to bring met migration down to say 100,000. How much would that increase taxes?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

If we were to bring met migration down to say 100,000. How much would that increase taxes?

They didn't do a forecast for 100K.

The projection for current migration of circa 240K a year gets the national debt down to around 40% of GDP in the timeframe studied.

The projection for zero migration shows it shooting up to almost 200% of GDP.

If it's reduced to 140K then we end up with debt of 100% of GDP, so I'd guess 100K would be debt of maybe 135% of GDP.

The difference between current migration levels and a reduced migration level of 100k a year would be almost 100% of GDP more debt over 50 years.

It seems pretty clear the tax rises required to pay for that would be very significant.

surfsister

I don't understand why when we have 2 million unemployed and are making children stay at school until 18 when many don't want to we are encouraging people to come into the country to work. It's madness we should be training up those unemployed to do the jobs not bringing in other people to do so. That means services are being stretched due to too many people, as unemployed and employed all use accident and emergency ( a four to 6 hour wait at my local), schools, roads etc
or am I missing something?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

surfsister wrote: »

am I missing something?

Yes.

See original post at top of thread.