Economic benefits of immigration mask severl concentrated challenges

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

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.

Had the European economy recovered at all and the UK economy still been in the mire then it is fairly likely that British Brickies would be heading over to Germany like Auf Widersen pet, youngsters would be heading to work in the Costas etc and the Spaniards, French and Polish would be working in their own countries or elsewhere in Europe rather than flocking to the UK where the jobs are and the target might have been met.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

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).

Thing here is you suggest that the article is misleading etc.

You then quote a sentence from the article talking about in work benefits, and claim we could do the same by limiting out of work benefits. i.e. misleading.

The two things are not the same.

I honestly don't see this as an anti immigration piece. Afterall, it doesn't propose stopping or even limiting immigration. What it's looking at is the in work benefits that people coming to this country get.

In any situation it seems rather silly to import people only to top up their wages with benefits.

Those people could still come here, if they so wished. They just wouldn't get tax credits etc if they came here to do lower skilled, lower paid jobs. At that point, it's very much up to them to make that decision as to whether or not they still wish to come to the UK.

Were getting to the stage on here where any article or paper regarding immigration is simply written off as anti immigrants etc if it doesn't simply state "immigration is positive in every single way". It would be a shame if we can't turn back from that and discuss what's actually being suggested or stated.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you removed in work benefits from those coming here, it's more likely you'd atract less migrants, while still attracting the higher skilled migrants. Those migrants are the ones who pay further taxes and therefore could support infrastructure upgrades (if the will from the government was there).

I don't think you can really pick and choose immigrants like that. Create an image of a UK that is unwelcoming to foreigners and it'll put off even those on your 'nice' list, tourists and inward investment.

Who'll make your daily meal deal anyway? The natives aren't interested even with all these in work benefits, the Hungarians won't do it for a two thirds cut in income and you won't pay more.

Who knows, maybe all the foreigners really are stealing jobs and the unemployed are just waiting for the chance to work in sandwich factories, care homes and Costa.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't think you can really pick and choose immigrants like that. Create an image of a UK that is unwelcoming to foreigners and it'll put off even those on your 'nice' list, tourists and inward investment.

This would assume therefore that people in the UK are put off moving to France, Spain etc.

Which, as we know, isn't the case.

And I don't know why you are suddenly so obsessed about meal deals. What on earth have I said for you to latch on to this all of a sudden?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This would assume therefore that people in the UK are put off moving to France, Spain etc.

Which, as we know, isn't the case.

And I don't know why you are suddenly so obsessed about meal deals. What on earth have I said for you to latch on to this all of a sudden?

It doesn't assume that at all. Introducing a qualifying time limit for in-work benefits for foreigners, in itself, clearly isn't going to suddenly send out the message that foreigners aren't welcome but it would be another ratcheting up of the anti-foreigner messages that are becoming ever louder.

Better get used to making your own packed lunch. In work benefits are a method of trying to get people to work for their benefits. Anyone currently unemployed isn't waiting in the wings for foreigners to leave so they can put together your chicken and stuffing sandwich.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

It doesn't assume that at all. Introducing a qualifying time limit for in-work benefits for foreigners, in itself, clearly isn't going to suddenly send out the message that foreigners aren't welcome but it would be another ratcheting up of the anti-foreigner messages that are becoming ever louder.

Better get used to making your own packed lunch. In work benefits are a method of trying to get people to work for their benefits. Anyone currently unemployed isn't waiting in the wings for foreigners to leave so they can put together your chicken and stuffing sandwich.

indeed so, it is self evident that the whole benefits systems needs to be more geared to making work pay.

in any event, making one's own lunch is a small price to pay for lower houses prices, better housing, lower state borrowing, less congestion, lower pollution, better access to health services etc.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Better get used to making your own packed lunch. In work benefits are a method of trying to get people to work for their benefits. Anyone currently unemployed isn't waiting in the wings for foreigners to leave so they can put together your chicken and stuffing sandwich.

You have clearly run out of valid or half decent arguments.

You seem obsessed with sandwiches all of a sudden. I can only assume it stems from the article I posted up not too long ago regarding Greencore? You've completely lost me otherwise.

chewmylegoff

jjlandlord wrote: »

There is no economic disadvantage whatsoever in having a larger population.

Neither is there any economic disadvantage to having a smaller population, or the population staying the same size. Obviously in certain circumstances this can be a bad thing, just like in certain circumstances a growing population can also be a bad thing.


Fundamentally it is difficult for me to see what the advantage is to having a system where someone can move from other EU countries to the UK and immediately start claiming tax credits and housing benefit in order to top up a minimum wage income whilst receiving access to public services - effectively subsidising or even paying people to move and work here. I don't know whether it is an enormous problem or not but there just seems to be no real need for it to be possible or plausible benefit to the country or its taxpayers.

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

It doesn't assume that at all. Introducing a qualifying time limit for in-work benefits for foreigners, in itself, clearly isn't going to suddenly send out the message that foreigners aren't welcome but it would be another ratcheting up of the anti-foreigner messages that are becoming ever louder.

Better get used to making your own packed lunch. In work benefits are a method of trying to get people to work for their benefits. Anyone currently unemployed isn't waiting in the wings for foreigners to leave so they can put together your chicken and stuffing sandwich.

I'm not sure that not wanting to sound unfriendly to foreigners is a particularly persuasive answer as to why we need a benefits system which doesn't require incoming immigrants to make some sort of contribution before they can start claiming. We seem to have a big deficit and the government is supposed to be finding ways to reduce the welfare bill.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

indeed so, it is self evident that the whole benefits systems needs to be more geared to making work pay.

in any event, making one's own lunch is a small price to pay for lower houses prices, better housing, lower state borrowing, less congestion, lower pollution, better access to health services etc.

I wouldn't have a problem with steps being taken to ensure the benefits system is better designed to ensure work pays. The issue I have is that this thread isn't about that - the context, as usual, is 'bloody foreigners getting something we don't'. The message is clear.

Yes if making my own sarnie leads to lower house prices, better housing, lower state borrowing etc. etc. that sounds great. Seems like an over simplistic extrapolation to me. Again the message is clear - deter immigrants and things will be great just like the good old days.

You and Graham must think people are daft.