We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If we vote for Brexit what happens
Comments
-
No it was a letter being strongly critical of the 1981 budget, further fiscal tightening in the midst of a period of below trend growth was hugely controversial
Sorry yes I got that wrong on the single market issue. But can you agree it shows a unanimity of economists against a stance which actually turned out to be the correct decision to take?
And as I and many have pointed out that is a pattern repeated on quite a few occasions in history. So the validity of unanimity of the views of economists must be called into question no?0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »Sorry yes I got that wrong on the single market issue. But can you agree it shows a unanimity of economists against a stance which actually turned out to be the correct decision to take?
And as I and many have pointed out that is a pattern repeated on quite a few occasions in history. So the validity of unanimity of the views of economists must be called into question no?
A lot of them would still say that actually there was a lot of truth in the criticism they made, unemployment went high and stayed high for longer than it should and monetarism was ultimately a failure as a guiding light for economic policy.0 -
A lot of them would still say that actually there was a lot of truth in the criticism they made, unemployment went high and stayed high for longer than it should and monetarism was ultimately a failure as a guiding light for economic policy.
The scenario comes across to me as they were ideologically opposed to it in the same way Sunni and Shia Islam are opposed to one another. And that their view of economics wasn't taking the wider picture into account. Surely the same could be said of the economists of today with some choosing to ignore the possibility of striking our own trade deals, the possibility of a falling pound boosting EU and non-EU exports and consumer prices dropping due to access to goods at world market prices (although offset by the falling pound, so presumably at or near cost neutral?)?0 -
happylucky wrote: »http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/11/david-cameron-a-vote-for-brexit-will-cost-pensioners-dear-if-fun/
DC's just played the state pension card.
0 -
TrickyTree83 wrote: »
But isn't the reality at the moment that we cannot afford to build all these new schools and hospitals and recruiting the staff we need for them? That we shouldn't be living beyond our means and borrowing to the hilt to fund all of this expansion? So someone please explain how we're supposed to deal with an influx of people - which we're unable to control at the border - when we're unable to deal with and pay for what we have now?
If we were intent on building a new city the size of Cardiff then I would agree, but immigration is just one factor in the planning that each town does to cater for population changes. We do not build a new hospital for immigrants we build a new hospital or extend an existing one when the population of one area has a growth trend due to the whole population. This is just town planning and if we expect an extra 100 people a year in an area we say "How shall we deal with it?" Those 100 people will generate revenue from their taxes. If Government just pockets the taxation and spends it on something else no wonder we have a problem!
ETA Incidentally how do we deal with the problem if say Zurich Insurance decides to relocate its Manchester Office and 1000 staff to Bristol in 2 years time?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
If we were intent on building a new city the size of Cardiff then I would agree, but immigration is just one factor in the planning that each town does to cater for population changes. We do not build a new hospital for immigrants we build a new hospital or extend an existing one when the population of one area has a growth trend due to the whole population. This is just town planning and if we expect an extra 100 people a year in an area we say "How shall we deal with it?" Those 100 people will generate revenue from their taxes. If Government just pockets the taxation and spends it on something else no wonder we have a problem!
One of my points was that the extra taxation cannot go towards these things. We simply can't afford to keep extending again and again as normally you would borrow to build / set up these additional services but at the moment additional borrowing is precisely what we can't do. At the moment the government has to use the extra income as well as massive savings across government spending and local government spending in order to pay down what we owe because at the start of the 2000's we borrowed from Peter to pay Paul and it's caught up with us. Even now we still have a deficit so that debt pile gets bigger.0 -
why not be honest and just add ' and I am willing to pay more tax to fund the necessary infrastructure .. lets say 5 p in the pound and see how it goes'.
which infrastructure is paid for via tax?
water? no
power? no
roads? more cars on the road MORE THAN pay for the roads many times over
Trains? yes but the car drivers cover that
Hospitals Schools Etc? Yes but immigrants work and pay taxes
Airports/ports? No
Offices/Warehouses/Logistics? No
Overall additional infrastructure if needed in a growing country is an opportunity nor a curse0 -
Do they contribute more than the same age profile demographic of able bodied native born?
Does their excess contribution also cover the costs of providing increased infrastructure? Would it cover compensating those who are having to pay more for housing, find it harder to find school places or failing to get a train seat for this non-economic disbenefit of having a larger population?
immigrants also allow locals to upskill which needs to be attributed to the immigrants side
long term unemployment (>12months) is only about 1% in the UK.
That means if we import 5 million Polish Bulgarians who all take low paid low skill jobs then those who would have been doing those low paid low skilled jobs are in higher paid higher skill jobs. That has to be true because the unemployment rate is still 1% so the low paid migrants dont displace locals onto the unemployment list they displace them UP the skill/carrier ladder.
Overall I think migrants are possibly a very big net contributor when you consider this factor0 -
Made up rubbish from a middle class perspective.
If you want cheap labour be honest enough to go and get it from the cheapest places in the world.
I prefer technology and automation as route to prosperity, something you constantly ignore.
You have a landlord view. I get it. It's that simple.
the migrants arent just filling jobs they are also creating demand so you can and will need both
long term unemployment in the UK is about 1% and it will very likely still be 1% in a decades time. The population will go up by about 5 million of which 3 million will take jobs (the other 2 million will be children or the old or the retired). These 3 million additional workers in jobs does not displace the locals onto unemployment as the unemployment is 1% now and then.
That means if the migrants are taking the lower paid jobs then they must be pushing some of the locals to higher tiers of work and pay. Something mostly invisible to everyone!
I think I am going to take Hamish Side on this one. Migrants probably are big net contributors maybe much more so than even Hamish realizes when we take the fact that the migrants allow locals to upskill and uppay0 -
which infrastructure is paid for via tax?
water? no
power? no
roads? more cars on the road MORE THAN pay for the roads many times over
Trains? yes but the car drivers cover that
Hospitals Schools Etc? Yes but immigrants work and pay taxes
Airports/ports? No
Offices/Warehouses/Logistics? No
Overall additional infrastructure if needed in a growing country is an opportunity nor a curse
are you saying, that from where we are now, we can have all the infrastructure spending we need without an increase in tax, borrowing or cutting other spending?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards