Immigration and the Economy

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

interesting video. afaik the uk already does investment VISAs. I think there are two levels, £50k investments and £200k investments which really means that a lot of the worlds rich (and plenty of its middle class) can come to the uk if they know about the system and can speak an ok level of english (one of the criteria)

Did you see the bit about the concurrent demise of ChinaTown in Vancouver alongside this mass growth in the nouveau Chinese rich?

That's what struck me. These new people do not identify with their native citizens in the same way.

You see this with the well educated; aspirational; Indians I frequently work with.

They have more in common with middle class British / French / etc than they do with lower income Indians.

Global corporations will only continue to accentuate the gap between people and the nation state.

I think national governments are behind the curve with this. Taxation systems still reflect the old world, not one where Apple hoards it's considerable wealth in various places.

Losing_the_way

I think that people should read the most recent research from Civitas before judging for or against the our current level of migration. At the least the Conclusion, from page 70, should be read by all who wish to comment.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/largescaleimmigration-1.pdf

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Think of the opposite. Imagine over the next 10 years the migrants all go home. Lets say 3 million of them with jobs leave and take their families too

Well a lot of higher paying jobs will be eliminated. If you think of various jobs in various sectors more or less 10% will be eliminated at all levels as the population just shrank 10%. If the leaving people are mostly disproportionately employed in the lower level lower pay lower skill jobs then their leaving will have to displace remaining higher level higher pay workers into lower level lower pay jobs.

So 3 million low payed retail, hospitality, catering & cleaning staff leave, that destroys 3 million jobs all the way up the scale and the workers and economy readjust those now needless higher paying jobs (as the demand is lower for them) pushing higher people down various scales until some 2.7 million retail/hospitality/catering/cleaning positions are filled by people who would otherwise be in different higher scale jobs

if 3 million people go home we will
-all be able to enjoy a higher standard of housing
-enjoy reduced our time travelling on the road each day
-enjoy better access to NHS, doctors, dentists, hospitals
-enjoy tax cuts as we won't need to spend huge sums of money widening motorways, increasing train lines, building houses, hospital, schools etc

the effect of the job distribution obviously depends who leaves and who stays

tincans6

CLAPTON wrote: »

if 3 million people go home we will

-enjoy better access to NHS, doctors, dentists, hospitals

I take it the none of the 26% of Doctors working in the NHS who are foreign nationals will be leaving then.

Perhaps you and your UKIP & BNP mates could put a yellow star on those people you want to 'go home'.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

if 3 million people go home we will
-all be able to enjoy a higher standard of housing
-enjoy reduced our time travelling on the road each day
-enjoy better access to NHS, doctors, dentists, hospitals
-enjoy tax cuts as we won't need to spend huge sums of money widening motorways, increasing train lines, building houses, hospital, schools etc

the effect of the job distribution obviously depends who leaves and who stays

If 3 million working people (locals or migrants) plus their non working families (children etc) left we would have circa 65 billion less in tax take. It might actually be more than that as the taxes on capital and the income derived from them would likely fall more than 10% but let's stick with £65 billion.

So with £65 billion less in taxes how do you propose the gap is filled? We would need to cut spending by at least that much and the national debt just jumped 10% v GDP due to its fixed nature but a fall in workers.

So while you claim less ques for doctors and tax cut as you no longer need train Libes the reality will be that more or less a 10% fall in the working population is going to have to see a 10% cut in all the departments. So you will need to fire 10% of all doctors and nurses and all the other staff that work for the NHS directly or indirectly. And a 10% fall in all jobs and economic activity

This is probably an optimistic case because as you say house prices would crash so would rent and so would office rents and rates etc. That might sound nice but the fall in income taxes corporate taxes business rates in excess of the 10% fall in population means a further tax hole to fill.


This is before we even consider that the leaving group are likely disproportionately of working age. Which means although taxes go down 10% the pension bill won't go down as much nor will the schooling bill nor will the NHS bill (largely cost of elderly)


Thought this referendum debate I've come to believe that migration net contributions to taxation is far far greater than Antone seems to realise primarily due to this upskillong accounting factor

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

If 3 million working people (locals or migrants) plus their non working families (children etc) left we would have circa 65 billion less in tax take. It might actually be more than that as the taxes on capital and the income derived from them would likely fall more than 10% but let's stick with £65 billion.

So with £65 billion less in taxes how do you propose the gap is filled? We would need to cut spending by at least that much and the national debt just jumped 10% v GDP due to its fixed nature but a fall in workers.

So while you claim less ques for doctors and tax cut as you no longer need train Libes the reality will be that more or less a 10% fall in the working population is going to have to see a 10% cut in all the departments. So you will need to fire 10% of all doctors and nurses and all the other staff that work for the NHS directly or indirectly. And a 10% fall in all jobs and economic activity

This is probably an optimistic case because as you say house prices would crash so would rent and so would office rents and rates etc. That might sound nice but the fall in income taxes corporate taxes business rates in excess of the 10% fall in population means a further tax hole to fill.


This is before we even consider that the leaving group are likely disproportionately of working age. Which means although taxes go down 10% the pension bill won't go down as much nor will the schooling bill nor will the NHS bill (largely cost of elderly)


Thought this referendum debate I've come to believe that migration net contributions to taxation is far far greater than Antone seems to realise primarily due to this upskillong accounting factor

but lets suppose the 3 million are all of retirement age then the results will be massively to our advantage

cells

I really want to read and learn more about this to be more certain of this idea. Theory: The average new arrival migrant (or returning native) worker contributes directly or indirectly the average sum to taxation.

So with roughly £650 billion collected in taxes and 32 million workers that puts the average tax take at £20k per worker. This of course includes indirect taxes like VAT and corp tax profits due to the population buying the goods of corporations etc

The idea being that even a person on min wage working full time in tesco earning £15k a year or a migrant working at Dyson on £50k a year both contribute directly and indirectly £20k in taxes. The former contributes more indirectly by pushing a number of people in a chain up the skill/pay scale and the latter contributes less than for seen by pushing a number of people down the skill/pay scale

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

I take it the none of the 26% of Doctors working in the NHS who are foreign nationals will be leaving then.

Perhaps you and your UKIP & BNP mates could put a yellow star on those people you want to 'go home'.

if you want to have a proper debate about immigration and the benefits and drawbacks both to the people of the Uk and to the people in their countries of origin, then that is fine:
if you simply want to become another toxic toastie full of hate for half of your fellow citizens then that's up to you too.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

but lets suppose the 3 million are all of retirement age then the results will be massively to our advantage

Yes definitely but as far as I know migrants demographics coming to the UK are not 100% of retirement age but are more skewed to be of young working age.

There will also be some cut off age where they are net burdens rather than big net contributors. In which case a migration policy based not on skill but age might be the most economically advantageous. With the low skill 20 year old of more value than the high skilled 50 year old.

The first would provide about £1m in taxes before needing support in retirement. The second £400k before needing retirement support


This is assuming my ideas above have some merit to them and are not a bunch of cack from a loon which they might be. Not looked into it enough at this point to be 100% certain but logically I think its sound so I'm 90% confident it makes sense

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

if 3 million people go home we will
-all be able to enjoy a higher standard of housing
-enjoy reduced our time travelling on the road each day
-enjoy better access to NHS, doctors, dentists, hospitals
-enjoy tax cuts as we won't need to spend huge sums of money widening motorways, increasing train lines, building houses, hospital, schools etc

the effect of the job distribution obviously depends who leaves and who stays

Simplistic rubbish that says nothing about what these people who should 'go home' :mad: contribute to the economy of this country.
Another poster refers to a Chinese immigrant as 'Ming the merciless'. Such an undercurrent of xenophobia in attitudes among some of the Brexiteers!