Economic benefits of immigration mask severl concentrated challenges

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

Let's cut the cr*p for a second.

Yes, lets.

I clearly stated and you clearly ignored:

There are plenty if you don't upgrade the infrastructure to cope.

We haven't upgraded the infrastructure to cope hence the (one of many) report in the FT.

Thrugelmir

jjlandlord wrote: »

Please, read and think before digging yourself deeper.

Germany is also 45,000 square miles larger............;)

jjlandlord

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Germany is also 45,000 square miles larger............;)

How does that matter re. the arguments above? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.
Let's keep the straw man arguments rolling...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We haven't upgraded the infrastructure to cope hence the (one of many) report in the FT.

It's hopeless...

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

How does that matter re. the arguments above? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.
Let's keep the straw man arguments rolling...



It's hopeless...

The argument above is regarding the removal of in work benefits for EU migrants arriving in the UK.

You haven't even attempted to answer, or even discuss the topic.

So whats your take on it. Would you support it given that it's not stopping people entering if they wish, it isn't a cap and it doesn't provide a dissinsentive for those who wish to come here and earn enough money to pay "into the pot".

Thrugelmir

jjlandlord wrote: »

How does that matter re. the arguments above? Oh, that's right: it doesn't.
Let's keep the straw man arguments rolling...



It's hopeless...

Sure is hopeless.

Germany has ~20 million more people, and they do not seem to have blackouts, or chaos on roads, hospitals and school.

You've obviously never been to Hamburg.

CLAPTON

most complicated issues have legitimate arguments in favour, against and things to note of interest
whether or not one is for or against, all people of good will and possessing a few brain cells would recognise the arguments on all sides.

jjlandlord

CLAPTON wrote: »

whether or not one is for or against, all people of good will and possessing a few brain cells would recognise the arguments on all sides.

I'm more that happy to consider arguments, however so far you have stated "the real economic disadvantages of a higher population from a UK perspective", which is wrong and baseless, even more so when you tried to back it up, as I have tried to say several times.
Unfortunately, it seems that I have hit a wall of 'brain cells'.

michaels

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm more that happy to consider arguments, however so far you have stated "the real economic disadvantages of a higher population from a UK perspective", which is wrong and baseless, even more so when you tried to back it up, as I have tried to say several times.
Unfortunately, it seems that I have hit a wall of 'brain cells'.

I agree, the top 50% are unequivocally better off as a result of low skilled European migration holding down wages and who cares about the bottom 50%.....

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Different take on the immigration debate. And please don't write it off straight away, it doesn't support UKIP policy.[/URL]

So, would you support taking away in work benefits from immigrants arriving in the country?

As the article states,, in some cases, if a low skilled worker comes to the UK, two thirds of his wages are infact benefits, straight away. Take this away, and how many would arrive?

It's the usual incredibly biased, misleading, writing you get from people supporting anti-immigration measures. Plenty of 'manys' and 'somes' rather than numbers. It intentionally misleads, and the people who agree with the view already lap it up.

When it says "Unlike the vast majority of EU countries, the UK makes in-work benefits... immediately available to EU migrants." it's intention is to mislead. We could easily do the same, by restricting out of work benefits to people who have paid national insurance in the past (like Germany) but it would have to include natives (like the German system).

There is a fundamental issue with low incomes in this country, which is that the state is subsidizing companies paying wages too low to live on with tax credits, housing benefit etc. It would be an issue whether we had more or less immigration, and we're not going to address it as long as supposedly pro-European parties like the Tories continue to blame the EU for every issue the country faces.

David Cameron makes a ridiculously stupid promise on immigration levels years ago no ifs no buts, continues to claim it can be achieved up until earlier this year, and is now claiming the EU is blowing it off course. The promise was a blatant lie from the beginning and now he's trying to dodge it by blaming Europe.

CLAPTON

jjlandlord wrote: »

I'm more that happy to consider arguments, however so far you have stated "the real economic disadvantages of a higher population from a UK perspective", which is wrong and baseless, even more so when you tried to back it up, as I have tried to say several times.
Unfortunately, it seems that I have hit a wall of 'brain cells'.

indeed so you have hit a wall with the brain cells

but as you can't think for yourself, you can quote a decent economics text book that shows that in all circumstances, increase in population has no disadvantages.