If we vote for Brexit what happens

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

Migrants certainly pay taxes, and are renowned for their industry. The difficulty arises when their number increases faster than we can provide the extra accommodation and services they require. .

EU migrants have contributed £20bn a decade more than they consume.

So as a block they pay for all their own housing, NHS needs, benefits, schooling, services, etc and then hand over £20 BILLION every ten years which we currently use to subsidise all those things for the native born.

If you want to argue that we should stop using that subsidy to pay for the shortfall in contributions form the native born and instead use it to expand infrastructure I'm in complete agreement.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

there is no reason to assume that migrants pay less tax than the indigenous population.

In fact there is a case to be made that they pay more:.

The UK native born pay in a lot less than they consume. About 89% of consumption last time I looked.

Non EU migrants (the ones we can cherry pick, shame we're spectacularly bad at it) also pay in less than they consume but in fairness they do pay in significantly more than the UK native born.

Only EU migrants pay in more than they consume. About £20bn a decade more in fact.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

How many have stood up and said .....

It's an interesting point, the nature of politics in general and a referendum in particular is that things do seem to get oversimplified, and I'm quite sure the rise of social media and the tendency to try and argue everything online in short sentences designed for maximum impact worsens the situation.

Ever since the widespread adoption of the 10 second soundbite for TV reporting consumption, with everyone trying to summarise a complicated argument in a short punchy statement, we've seen political discourse become more truncated and less accurate and I for one believe this is a bad thing.

Speaking of which....;)

'EU membership - arguments both ways, perhaps a bit less direct democratic control but less risk,

On the face of it that's actually not a bad soundbite in accuracy terms - but it's definitely arguable.

I genuinely do not believe we have "less direct democratic control".

We as a society have chosen to accept that some elements of our interaction with Europe operate under a slightly different democratic structure that we of course have the opportunity to participate fully in.

But as we have the ability to leave Europe at any time, no referendum required just a simple majority in Parliament, we retain ultimate control of our own destiny, sovereignty and democracy and always have.

So I don't see how anyone can ever argue that participating in the EU involves any loss of sovereignty or democracy.... Because a loss of something implies you don't have final authority or ultimate control over it.... And we most certainly do as we can choose to leave at any time.

It would probably be more accurate to say that as with any treaty or trade deal, we as a nation have chosen to work jointly with others, and that requires some standardisation of rules and regulations along with structures that support common goals.

But admittedly that doesn't make for such a good soundbite...:)

Middle high earners gain from cheaper un/low skilled labour, lower earners lose out'.

Hmmm.... We've been around this one before.

Again if we're going for accuracy over brevity it would be more appropriate to phrase that in the following way:

The very lowest quintile of earners do see a tiny reduction in earnings from EU immigration, less than a penny an hour, but this effect is largely constrained by minimum wage laws in the UK and in any case has now been fully mitigated by a combination of the new minimum wage increases and tax changes to personal allowances.

Wages effects further up the scale range from no change in the second quintile, to increases in wages in the 3rd, 4th and 5th quintiles.

So EU migration has been (slightly) bad for the very lowest earners, has had no negative or positive effect on the next lowest earners, and has had a positive effect on low middle earners, middle earners, upper middle earners and high earners.

But even that is only part of the story.

There's a lot of research that suggests such income and employment effects are only temporary in nature, and that ultimately high levels of immigration improve the wage and employment outcomes for the native born on average after the initial displacement effects have been worked through.

Although again I appreciate it's hard to get all that into a 10 second soundbite....:o

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

EU migrants have contributed £20bn a decade more than they consume.

So as a block they pay for all their own housing, NHS needs, benefits, schooling, services, etc and then hand over £20 BILLION every ten years which we currently use to subsidise all those things for the native born.

If you want to argue that we should stop using that subsidy to pay for the shortfall in contributions form the native born and instead use it to expand infrastructure I'm in complete agreement.

Depends how you calculate the £20Bn. That's just 2Bn per year

For instance, EU migrants are usually of working age whereas there are 11m UK born pensioners taking their OAP every month and making greater use of doctors and hospitals.

Either way, when an immigrant arrives they need a house on day one and as you regularly tell us, there's a huge shortage resulting in higher house prices/rents. Which of course the UK born then have to pay.

gfplux

I wonder how many of the posters who are spending so much energy in this thread will actually cast a vote on referendum day.
As a postal voter I have already cast my vote.
I suspect the winner of the referendum will not be the stay camp, nor the leave camp but the "couldn't bother to vote" camp.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters who are spending so much energy in this thread will actually cast a vote on referendum day.
As a postal voter I have already cast my vote.
I suspect the winner of the referendum will not be the stay camp, nor the leave camp but the "couldn't bother to vote" camp.

I plan on voting twice

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

you avoid the issue of whether we have adequately built
sufficient 'infrastructure ' to meet the need of the population increase ; If we have then fine : if not then we clearly need to increase taxes to pay for the shortfall or course simply borrow more .


The idea that 9 million people don't need infrastructure building seems a little bizarre.

I did not ignore it. Though given the number of questions that you ignore I cannot see why I cannot do it too.

Those responsible for planning infrastructure of any kind have to plan for the capacity they expect in the future. I agree that immigration does not help this but it is only part of the problem. Compared to the changes which happen normally the addition of some immigrants is a small part of the general problem. Blaming immigration for all problems is not helpful.

michaels

At least the BBC is unbiased and doesn't censor comments like the following:

I'm a racist, I would like to keep immigration at the same level but swap unqualified Romanian car washers for Indian computer scientists, Chinese research students and Filipino nurses (or even for Romanian computer scientists, research students and nurses).

Unlike the non-racist remain supporters who only want white European immigrants at the expense of those from elsewhere in the world.

Oh, hang on a minute:

Dear BBC Visitor,

Thank you for contributing to the BBC web site. Unfortunately we've had to remove the content below because it contravened one of our House Rules.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

But if the increase in immigration each year equals the population of say Leeds or Manchester, then we have to build a city that size each year to accommodate and provide the necessary services they require.

Anything less and the services we currently enjoy will need to be rationed.

You do not need to build a city the size of Leeds unless the aim is to create a new town for immigrants to live in.

82% of immigrants work and pay taxes. If the Government chooses not to let those services be provided whose fault is this?

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

Disingenuous nonsense. That kind analysis works from the utterly false premise that immigration happens equally across the country, with the overall numbers being absorbed with barely a ripple.

The reality is that whilst some areas see almost no migration, other areas bear the brunt & are transformed utterly & in ways that are disastrous the the locals who've lived there their whole lives.

In my experience, most of the liberals who like to lecture others on how they should welcome migration, tend to live in the former types of areas & neither know nor care what effect migration has on many communities. They prefer to issue smug lectures & unfounded accusations of bigotry.

Can you explain what the impact of an immigrant is on your life?

If a business decided to relocate from a place 200 miles away and occupied a new office in your town, what impact would that have on you?