If we vote for Brexit what happens

Money_saving_maniac

cells wrote: »

Blah blah




Overall taxes in the UK are ~£20k per worker*. This is roughly the contribution of a migrant be they a shelf stacker on £12k or a doctor on £120k or even the migrant football star on £12 million a year. Their effective contribution is the same £20k per worker even if individually their tax bills say something different

You can use this to have an estimate of a migrants contribution. If we import a million working age 25-30 year old migrants in good health and they all take low paid jobs (or any jobs for that matter) their contribution would be ~£20 billion in taxes per yr. Their use of pensions/healthcare/education/additonal-military/etc will be close to zero. I would guess that of the £20 billion they pay they probably only take back out £2 billion which would put their net contribution at ~£18 billion. Bring in 3 million such migrants and you close the deficit completely. Further growth can be used to cut taxes or increase spending rather than close the now gone deficit. Bring in 8 million such people and you can close the deficit and also scrap VAT.

I do appreciate that about 30 years from now they too will then have a public sector demand profile more close to the locals but that is 30 years of gravy for the locals. and overall they will still be taking out less as a foreign country paid for their early years and education etc. Also yes we dont only import healthy 25-30 year olds we import some older people and some not so healthy people and even some criminals. Overall the demographic profile of a migrant is better than that of the locals (this is an assumption on my part but I feel its a good one and one I will use unless proven otherwise) which means they take less and give more almost irrespective of what job they are doing. The same arguments also would apply to importing the same number of migrants who are high pay high skill. Their taxes need to reflect the lower taxes paid by the locals that are pushed down



*it needs to be amended a bit to take into account taxes pensioners pay directly or indirectly.

You are delusional. I don't know where to start with this, it's so wrong on every level.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you seriously saying you would prefer the UK to have
-no tractors or farm machinery, no crop picking machines etc
-no robots in car factories
-no computers running banking system
-no automation of railway signaling
-no science applied to food technology
-no medicines or antibiotics
-no computorise mediacl diognose machines
-no MRI / xray scanners
-no internet
-no online shopping
-no Tv (what ws wrong with the music hall)

you would love all these to go, so we can all work on the land

you are even more loonie that the Corbynites

Where did I say this?

Clue: I did not say anthing of the kind.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you or do you not believe that a world wide country plot of 'population' against 'GDP per capita' will show a broadly linear / smooth continuous rising curve?
The purpose being to proof, your contention that more people = richer per capita

Yeah lets do the Clapton dance

cells

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

You are delusional. I don't know where to start with this, it's so wrong on every level.

Well this is a place to talk it out.*

What do you think is wrong with the displacement idea.

If we import a million low skill workers what happens in the economy? They supply low value labour but they have higher value needs. If they are all for instance shelf stackers then who gets to become the 10,000 doctors that this groups demands call for?

Alternatively if we import a million very high skilled migrants who all get £80-100k pa jobs they have low skill and pay demands too. Who becomes the 10,000 shelf stackers that this groups demand calls for?

In both cases the answer is the locals. A million low skill low pay migrants push the local workforce up. A million high pay high skill migrants push the locals down.

In both instances the net contribution of each group will be very similar when you take into account the displaced taxes and people. Of course their pay slips will say a completely different number

cells

Imagine just the UK no migrants in or out.
Imagine 10% of the population and workforce just die but by coincidence its the 10% of the lowest paid that all die.

What happens?
Well you need to get rid of 10% of the doctors 10% of the solicitors etc you no longer need them. But the economy still needs 90% of the lost shelf stackers and cleaners and taxi drivers and so on. So the poor doctor that just got fired needs to become the cleaner and the solicitor needs to become the taxi driver. (Or more likely multiple smaller steps down the path)

Lower skill migration is the opposite of this. If a million low skill migrants come and enter the bottom quarter of the workforce then 0.97 million locals from the bottom quarter get displaced to the quarter above. 0.94 million from that quarter get displaced up to the next quarter. 0.90 million from that quarter get displaced up to the top quarter. The opposite would also hold if a million migrants left the country and left the bottom quarter then we would see a cascading down of the locals into those positions.

Less migration means more working class local kids can pick the strawberries rather than be displaced up to better pay and conduction jobs.

glasgowdan

Crashy_Time wrote: »

https://brightside.me/inspiration-psychology/why-young-people-dont-buy-cars-and-apartments-anymore-238710/

You need to be a bit more careful with your googling!

The average age of buyers is apparently 30. Average. This means a lot of buyers in their 20's. Average deposit is 17% and the number of ftb has risen.

Hardly supports wild claims of houses being unaffordable.

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/first-time-buyers/average-age-of-firsttime-buyers-rises-to-30-in-the-uk-and-32-in-london-a102966.html

mayonnaise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Good grief there's some delusion in this thread.

I'm out - enjoy the ride.

You mean your heart doesn't swell at the thought of Boris hoving into view on the fore deck as Britannia pulls into Zanzibar or Java, the hottest ticket in town, merchants clambering for a seat for talk of trade and tiffin before an evenings galavanting at the gin palace?

That's quite unpatriotic of you, Hamish.
Remember Trafalgar, El Alamein, Waterloo, ...we're putting the 'Great' back into Great Britain!

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Good grief there's some delusion in this thread.

I'm out - enjoy the ride.

The Scots played a vastly disproportional role in Empire 1, I rather thought a good egg like yourself might put yourself forward for Governor of Khyber. The young ladies will suck your toes and attend your every pleasure, a far cry from the demands and whims of the English woman, what!

What do think of Peter Lilly's proposal?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Imagine just the UK no migrants in or out.
Imagine 10% of the population and workforce just die but by coincidence its the 10% of the lowest paid that all die.

What happens?
Well you need to get rid of 10% of the doctors 10% of the solicitors etc you no longer need them. But the economy still needs 90% of the lost shelf stackers and cleaners and taxi drivers and so on. So the poor doctor that just got fired needs to become the cleaner and the solicitor needs to become the taxi driver. (Or more likely multiple smaller steps down the path)

Lower skill migration is the opposite of this. If a million low skill migrants come and enter the bottom quarter of the workforce then 0.97 million locals from the bottom quarter get displaced to the quarter above. 0.94 million from that quarter get displaced up to the next quarter. 0.90 million from that quarter get displaced up to the top quarter. The opposite would also hold if a million migrants left the country and left the bottom quarter then we would see a cascading down of the locals into those positions.

Less migration means more working class local kids can pick the strawberries rather than be displaced up to better pay and conduction jobs.

In a world where people behave rationally rather than in fantasy land, what would happen is that businesses would look to use the available labour force in a more productive manner : just as we have been doing for the last few hundred years so it wouldn't be a revolutionary idea.
Of course there may be people who believe we have reached the end of automation and there are no more productivity gains to be made : most of those are loonie lefties who lament when a single job is lost and wish to hold back the tide of progress.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Where did I say this?

Clue: I did not say anthing of the kind.

you seem to lament the lost of any job but maybe I misunderstand you and you really celebrate every bank closure as it makes us all richer.