National debt would soar if immigration reduced...

cells

Hamish is not wrong, no matter what you think of the pros and cons its a simple fact that a workforce with a lower burden will be a wealther people.

However the difference will not be abject poverty vs massive wealth.

It will be a comfortable life vs a slightly more comfortable life


For those that are anti 'immigrants' you are on a side that is destined to lose simply because of mixed marrages. Even if you somehow make it illegal to come or leave the island the 'face; of the nation will change as we mix with each other. The biggest minority group will soon be mixed race

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Hamish is not wrong, no matter what you think of the pros and cons its a simple fact that a workforce with a lower burden will be a wealther people.

However the difference will not be abject poverty vs massive wealth.

It will be a comfortable life vs a slightly more comfortable life


For those that are anti 'immigrants' you are on a side that is destined to lose simply because of mixed marrages. Even if you somehow make it illegal to come or leave the island the 'face; of the nation will change as we mix with each other. The biggest minority group will soon be mixed race

this is easily tested

if true the countries with large numbers of young people will be richer than countries with large numbers of older people


just post up a list of 'richer' countries and their age profile

and compare with a list of 'poorer' countries and their age profile

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

this is easily tested

if true the countries with large numbers of young people will be richer than countries with large numbers of older people


just post up a list of 'richer' countries and their age profile

and compare with a list of 'poorer' countries and their age profile

cause and effect. rich people have fewer kids

So all your graph would show is that richer nations have fewer kids.

It would be better to do a graph of wealth in comparable nations vs work participation. So does a country where 50% of the population work have a better life/wealth than a country where 40% of the population work?

Eiter way its trival. The world is globalising as we enter a type 1 world. It is unstopable and the UK simply by its English (type 1 language) will see more than its share of immigrants arrive

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

cause and effect. rich people have fewer kids

So all your graph would show is that richer nations have fewer kids.

It would be better to do a graph of wealth in comparable nations vs work participation. So does a country where 50% of the population work have a better life/wealth than a country where 40% of the population work?

Eiter way its trival. The world is globalising as we enter a type 1 world. It is unstopable and the UK simply by its English (type 1 language) will see more than its share of immigrants arrive

so what you are saying is the following is rubbish?

Hamish is not wrong, no matter what you think of the pros and cons its a simple fact that a workforce with a lower burden will be a wealther people.

However the difference will not be abject poverty vs massive wealth.

It will be a comfortable life vs a slightly more comfortable life


For those that are anti 'immigrants' you are on a side that is destined to lose simply because of mixed marrages. Even if you somehow make it illegal to come or leave the island the 'face; of the nation will change as we mix with each other. The biggest minority group will soon be mixed race

Slightly_Squiffy

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It is "obvious".

That we will need to find more working age people in the future from somewhere is indisputable.

I don't much care whether or not those young people are born here or born somewhere else, so long as they spend most of their working lives here building and benefitting our economy instead of some other economy.

But if you think finding a way to trigger a baby boom is easier then crack on...

Let's start by bringing down the cost of family homes, introducing a sliding scale stamp duty so people can afford to move into bigger houses when needed, inflation stagnation on gas, water and electricity, steady wage inflation in line with growth and a reform of the education and childcare system, all so people can afford to have more children. That would be a nice place to start, no?

I'm personally pro immigration. I'm extremely anti freedom of movement within the EU. We need skilled workers who can contribute to the country, entrepreneurs who will create new jobs, not just worker bees to fill the ones we already have. Close the borders to Europe and make it easier for people from China, India and the Middle East to plough money into new business and industry.

What happens when all these immigrants become elderly? They have to !!!! off home then so we don't have to support them?

Loughton_Monkey

I remain far from convinced that 'old people' are as much a drain on public finances as people think.

Yes, in 2012, Old Age Pension cost £93.6 bn out of £694 bn total public expenditure. That's 13.4% Only a tinch above education at £86.9 bn at 12.4%.

The £121 bn spent on healthcare is, I assume, reasonably weighted towards older and younger rather than 'middle age'. Roughly 20% of the population are of state pension age. Rather more than this (about 25%) are children or students.

When you consider the 'welfare bill' of £113 bn, which must be spent primarily (but not exclusively) on the unemployed/lower paid, I suspect those individuals are costing much, much, more than an average pensioner for pension and healthcare combined.

Now look at pensioners as a group. On average, they receive a gross income of £23,192 [DWP 2010/11], of which £9,932 comes from the state. So every pensioner on average may be unproductive, but is pumping £13,260 of cash into the economy by way of tax, spending, or ultimately inheritance. A lot of working adults aren't doing that. And what is more, this excludes the wealth [such as house equity and savings] that also ultimately gets pumped 'for free' into the economy. The spending of savings is additional to the £23K, and all the house equity is extra as well.

So where is the "drain" on the economy? I have yet to see any rational statistics on what a pensioner "costs" to the taxpayer, set against what a pensioner gives back to the taxpayer. Compare this to the 'cost' of children - who put nothing back - until they start work. So I'd love to see an analysis that could accurately breakdown the burden of (say) 50 adults, who between them have to support 25 children, 5 benefit recipients, and 20 pensioners. The latter group would cost a fraction of either of the other two per person.

I know I am not typical, but when I get my state pension next year, it will pale into insignificance set against the tax I still pay, let alone quite a substantial wealth that is slowly finding it's way into the GDP of this nation [and France when it comes to wine, cigars and gin, but that's another matter].

So you are bunging me £8,500 a year [less tax] and statistically paying slightly more than average for my healthcare, but I hardly think it's a bad deal for Joe Taxpayer.

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

...

For those that are anti 'immigrants' you are on a side that is destined to lose simply because of mixed marrages. Even if you somehow make it illegal to come or leave the island the 'face; of the nation will change as we mix with each other. The biggest minority group will soon be mixed race

I think pro or anti immigration is the wrong question. The majority of people in the UK are used to living in a multi-cultural society.

It's the scale of migration, and the rate of change of populace which concerns people.

The infrastructure in UK is in some places ageing and difficult to maintain.

It is true that we could shift population centres. It would be a mammoth exercise, and upgrading things like the energy grid is very expensive. Burying cables for example is an order of magnitude more expensive than unsightly pylons.

Then there is societal cohesion. It takes time for people to adapt. We seem to assume also that different migrant groups get on with one another. This is not always the case.

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

...
With regards to your robot comment it actually is a large part of the answer but probably not the rorobts you imagine. Take for instance computer driven cars. They will save the world circa $10 trillion annually so even if an old person is a $10k a burden just that ine tech can effectively pay for yhe care of an additional 1 billion old folk.

People do not understand what is meant by robot and automation. The robots I worked with several decades ago have long been obsolete. Many future robots will be single function devices on a miniaturised scale.

Sampong

kabayiri wrote: »

I think pro or anti immigration is the wrong question. The majority of people in the UK are used to living in a multi-cultural society.

Correct. The majority of people don't have a problem. It's the politicians who have thrown around wild accusations of racism and xenophobia. It's nothing more than defamation on a mass scale.

kabayiri wrote: »

It's the scale of migration, and the rate of change of populace which concerns people.

Again I agree totally. Mass immigration on the current scale is unprecedented. It is occurring at a rate far greater than at any point in history.

kabayiri wrote: »

The infrastructure in UK is in some places ageing and difficult to maintain.

The infrastructure simply cannot cope with the pace of change.

kabayiri wrote: »

Then there is societal cohesion. It takes time for people to adapt. We seem to assume also that different migrant groups get on with one another. This is not always the case.

Social cohesion has already broken down in many areas of the UK. The defamer's mentioned above will of course blame this on racism and xenophobia. The reality is that the newcomers often refuse to integrate, preferring to speak their own language and stay within groups of their own people, leading to divisions in society.

I have been ousted on here before for mentioning some of the more disgusting behaviours exhibited, and accused of making it all up.

Now it would appear that Sheffield County Council have considered releasing an instruction manual for life in Britain. Urging migrants not to spit, urinate or defecate in the streets - and to not dump rubbish in neighbour's gardens.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511082/Sheffield-Council-produce-leaflet-teach-migrants-anti-social-behaviour.html

And it goes on to give advice on how to access benefits.

And in reference to the OBR report cited by the OP. It's just another politically motivated report in support of mass migration.

It gives no explanation of how we will deal with the issue that, in years to come the migrants will also grow old and require a state pension.

As others have stated, their suggestion is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Arguments in favour of high immigration to defuse the “pensions time bomb” do not stand up to scrutiny as they are based on the unreasonable assumption of a static retirement age as people live longer and ignore the fact that, in time, immigrants too will grow old and draw pensions. Increasing the retirement age, as the Government has done, is the only viable approach to resolving this issue.

CLAPTON

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I remain far from convinced that 'old people' are as much a drain on public finances as people think.

Yes, in 2012, Old Age Pension cost £93.6 bn out of £694 bn total public expenditure. That's 13.4% Only a tinch above education at £86.9 bn at 12.4%.

The £121 bn spent on healthcare is, I assume, reasonably weighted towards older and younger rather than 'middle age'. Roughly 20% of the population are of state pension age. Rather more than this (about 25%) are children or students.

When you consider the 'welfare bill' of £113 bn, which must be spent primarily (but not exclusively) on the unemployed/lower paid, I suspect those individuals are costing much, much, more than an average pensioner for pension and healthcare combined.

Now look at pensioners as a group. On average, they receive a gross income of £23,192 [DWP 2010/11], of which £9,932 comes from the state. So every pensioner on average may be unproductive, but is pumping £13,260 of cash into the economy by way of tax, spending, or ultimately inheritance. A lot of working adults aren't doing that. And what is more, this excludes the wealth [such as house equity and savings] that also ultimately gets pumped 'for free' into the economy. The spending of savings is additional to the £23K, and all the house equity is extra as well.

So where is the "drain" on the economy? I have yet to see any rational statistics on what a pensioner "costs" to the taxpayer, set against what a pensioner gives back to the taxpayer. Compare this to the 'cost' of children - who put nothing back - until they start work. So I'd love to see an analysis that could accurately breakdown the burden of (say) 50 adults, who between them have to support 25 children, 5 benefit recipients, and 20 pensioners. The latter group would cost a fraction of either of the other two per person.

I know I am not typical, but when I get my state pension next year, it will pale into insignificance set against the tax I still pay, let alone quite a substantial wealth that is slowly finding it's way into the GDP of this nation [and France when it comes to wine, cigars and gin, but that's another matter].

So you are bunging me £8,500 a year [less tax] and statistically paying slightly more than average for my healthcare, but I hardly think it's a bad deal for Joe Taxpayer.

Accounting can be confusing: if there are no doctors or no nurses or no food then having an income of 23k isn't helpful.

The demographics will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on per capita gdp although not along Hamish's absurd prediction.