Economic benefits of immigration mask severl concentrated challenges

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

The increase in population, especially in London and the SE has created severe problems that have not, on the whole, been to the advantage of the people that lived there.
If you wish to totally ignore these issues and cry racist then so beit.
Nowhere have I suggested that foreigners get something that native born don't get so don't let your irrational prejudices cloud your judgement.

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Equally, I'm not sure Graham's dislike of foreigners is a particularly good basis for reducing benefits.

Get rid of all in work benefits for me and let the consumer decide if they're willing to pay more for their meal deal, child care or health service. No skin off my nose - I'll be just fine and it'll make the small minded happy if only for a short time.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

The increase in population, especially in London and the SE has created severe problems that have not, on the whole, been to the advantage of the people that lived there.
If you wish to totally ignore these issues and cry racist then so beit.
Nowhere have I suggested that foreigners get something that native born don't get so don't let your irrational prejudices cloud your judgement.

London seems like a wonderful vibrant city to me. As far as I can see it's changed for the better since the early nineties when I started going for meetings. If you don't like living in a place where the population has increased why not move? Seems like a city for the young - maybe you've outgrown it?

Vote with your feet and remove your talent.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

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.

If you had a hint of rationality, or informed opinion, you'd know that a target of <100,000 was nonsense in any situation short of economic collapse in the UK and a economic boom in the rest of the EU. You can lead a horse/kipper to water/truth but you can't make it drink/reconsider its blinkered position.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Admittedly a poor example, though I fully expect in work benefit restrictions will work in the same way. I'm not aware of a single "in work" benefit in another EU country which is available to natives without restriction but is restricted for other EU nationals. Perhaps you or someone else would care to enlighten us with some examples?

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

London seems like a wonderful vibrant city to me. As far as I can see it's changed for the better since the early nineties when I started going for meetings. If you don't like living in a place where the population has increased why not move? Seems like a city for the young - maybe you've outgrown it?

Vote with your feet and remove your talent.

so you recognise no downside about high houses prices , pollution, taxpayer funded infrastructure costs, poor access to health care, long commute times, impossibility of locally born people starting a family there near family and friends
but you do enjoy going there for meetings.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

That's not the context at all.

We all get in work benefits if we qualify.

Seems to me you are trying to make it into something it never was.

danothy

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not aware of a single "in work" benefit in another EU country which is available to natives without restriction but is restricted for other EU nationals. Perhaps you or someone else would care to enlighten us with some examples?

My view on the matter is that either you should be able to claim without having contributed, or that you should have to contribute before you can claim, and that there shouldn't be a difference based on where you were born. Do the people who don't want immigrants to be able to claim without contributing also support natives having to contribute before they can claim? If so, why is the focus so often on the immigrants and not on the system?

kabayiri

Aside from the immigration angle, I have one fundamental question.

Are you happy to see the state subsidise lower paid workers?

If you are then the current situation is good for you. Rarely has the state been so generous to the lower paid. Business would be daft not to take on labour if it is subsidised.

My problem with this is that it masks the true costs of living in a big way, and distorts things. Your big value meal deal sandwich has a hidden cost element to it, when we are paying 10s of billions a year in working subsidy.

I'm not sure the current levels of subsidy are remotely sustainable, given that the state overspends by a hundred billion a year. The big ticket bills must be reduced, and to me that includes a change in direction for in-work and out-of-work subsidy.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you recognise no downside about high houses prices , pollution, taxpayer funded infrastructure costs, poor access to health care, long commute times, impossibility of locally born people starting a family there near family and friends
but you do enjoy going there for meetings.

Resorting to a strawman?

Yes I recognise downsides in all of the above. Sounds grim in London - nothing quite like it though judging by an almost pathological need to live there despite it's third world qualities.