Perception vs Reality

BillJones

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem is, if it is doing more to increase the difference between rich and poor it is not a good thing.

For whom?

I'm one of the hated "1%", and yet would be pleased at some policies that increased my wealth, such as a reduction in my income tax.

I think that you are taking what would be good for you, and assuming that it would be a universal good, which is far from proven.

ukcarper

BillJones wrote: »

For whom?

I'm one of the hated "1%", and yet would be pleased at some policies that increased my wealth, such as a reduction in my income tax.

I think that you are taking what would be good for you, and assuming that it would be a universal good, which is far from proven.

Obviously not you but it will the majority.

chucky

Generali wrote: »

Net migration per 1,000 of population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

UK = 2.59
Aus = 5.93

That's well over double and mean that in absolute terms Aus takes almost as many migrants net as the UK.

For those that have never visited Sydney, in my opinion it is one of the most diverse cities as far as nationalities go, maybe even ahead of London and New York.

Unless you have these life experiences you just don't realise it. I would suggest those that are critical to travel the world a bit more and appreciate other cultures.

Bantex_2

chucky wrote: »

For those that have never visited Sydney, in my opinion it is one of the most diverse cities as far as nationalities go, maybe even ahead of London and New York.

Unless you have these life experiences you just don't realise it. I would suggest those that are critical to travel the world a bit more and appreciate other cultures.

Australia picks and chooses who it allows entry to based on the skills and attributes that are required at any one time. That is different to just saying all immigration is good so open the borders.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bantex wrote: »

Australia picks and chooses who it allows entry to based on the skills and attributes that are required at any one time. That is different to just saying all immigration is good so open the borders.

And yet Australia ends up with a system where immigration is over twice as high per capita than the UK, but administered at a much higher cost and complexity.

So we have managed to keep immigration at a much lower level than Australia, and still fill our skills shortages, with the system we have now.

I'm not seeing why you'd think the Aussie system is better?

Bantex_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yet Australia ends up with a system where immigration is over twice as high per capita than the UK, but administered at a much higher cost and complexity.

So we have managed to keep immigration at a much lower level than Australia, and still fill our skills shortages, with the system we have now.

I'm not seeing why you'd think the Aussie system is better?

Australians are better protected from the harmful effects by restricting entry from those that would be directly competing for the same jobs. I really cannot see why that is a bad thing. What is the current unemployment rate in Oz?

chucky

Bantex wrote: »

Australia picks and chooses who it allows entry to based on the skills and attributes that are required at any one time. That is different to just saying all immigration is good so open the borders.

So you are agreeing that immigration is a good thing...

Thanks for confirming.

Bantex_2

chucky wrote: »

So you are agreeing that immigration is a good thing...

Thanks for confirming.

Controlled immigration is a good thing. Pick and choose who you need, just like a successful company would do.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

Hamish quotes shows that better paid benefit more and the lower paid are worse off.

Hang on.

My sources show that all those above the 20th percentile of income are neutral or better off, based purely on wages.

Generali is right when he says a bigger and more thriving economy (which immigration brings) is also better able to pay for the other services and benefits that the lowest paid require.

Perhaps being out of the country you are not seeing the problems the large number of immigrants arriving in a short time are causing. The distribution of immigrants is not uniform and large numbers are arriving in certain areas but the money to resource the large numbers is not being put into place. This causes problems in the local area which feed UKIP etc.

This entire thread was about the frankly delusional quotes of UKIP supporters living in an area that has only had tiny levels of immigration, and where around 95% of residents are 'White British'.

The "problems the large number of immigrants arriving in a short time are causing" are largely made up.

It is in most cases a complete and utter fabrication to claim immigrants are causing any significant problems, and in the very few parts of the country where it might have a small element of truth, you tend to find the reporting on any such problem is hugely exaggerated with local flames being fanned by Vested Interests such as the BNP or UKIP.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Clearly you haven't argued that the UK should reduce immigration and clearly you have argued immigration is good. So one would assume you are arguing that the UK should stick with it's current policies which is open door immigration to 500m inhabitants of the EU.

Why not - it seems to be working for us. It's not as if 500m people are going to up sticks and come and live here.

There's a demographic problem heading our way and immigration is part of the solution. I look around my own city and wonder if some of the immigrants will ever make a worthwhile contribution but if people want to make better lives for themselves here that seems like the basis for a win win outcome.