The thread for pointless arguments about Brexit

cells

My estimate of migration net contribution.

If the migration participation rate is 80% and we let in 1 million migrants of working age (18-65) with an average working age distribution uk profile these people will in theory contribute £14.25k per worker of which 0.8 million will be workers. That is ~£14.25 billion in taxes

On the other hand the government spends+borrows about £11k per capita. However the government spends less on migrants as the migrant profile is more densely in the working age group and less on the young and old group. Most the NHS budget and obviously the pension budget is spent on the old and thus this group will be much less pressure on those two very big costs. Likewise a lower percentage of children will mean less pressure on the schools and education side. It would take me too long to estimate with reasonable accuracy all these factors but it definitely means the government spends less on services and benefits than the £11k for the locals. So Im going with £8k its very likely to be lower

This would put the net contribution at £6.25k per migrant or £6.25 billion per million migrants. That is a contribution beyond what they take out.


So if the UK takes on 10 million migrants of working age its got another £62.5 billion for 'free'. That is £62.5 billion that can be spent on tax cuts for everyone or targeted tax cuts or it can be used for the NHS or whatever else (remember that isn't £62.5 billion to school and healthcare the migrants, they have already paid for that, that is £62.5 million on top of everything)

Migrants contribute a lot more than they take when you fully account for the fact that they push locals up pay bands.

cells

this also leads to the obvious conclusion that the younger the migrant the more economic benefit to the uk and locals.

This should be obvious without even thinking about it, a 20 year old migrant working for 50 years before needing healthcare and a pension is surely a good deal better for us than a 50 year old migrant working for 15 years before needing healthcare and a pension.

So rather than importing a million (likely older) skilled migrants to push the locals down the wage and skills band it makes more sense to import a million young lower skilled migrants to push the locals up skill and pay bands


If we do have a points based system or some way to limit migration I am coming over to the conclusion that it should be heavily biased to the young especially the 18-30 group for simple economic and local benefit reasons. They are also more likely to integrate and mix with the locals.

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

My estimate of migration net contribution.

If the migration participation rate is 80% and we let in 1 million migrants of working age (18-65) with an average working age distribution uk profile these people will in theory contribute £14.25k per worker of which 0.8 million will be workers. That is ~£14.25 billion in taxes

On the other hand the government spends+borrows about £11k per capita. However the government spends less on migrants as the migrant profile is more densely in the working age group and less on the young and old group. Most the NHS budget and obviously the pension budget is spent on the old and thus this group will be much less pressure on those two very big costs. Likewise a lower percentage of children will mean less pressure on the schools and education side. It would take me too long to estimate with reasonable accuracy all these factors but it definitely means the government spends less on services and benefits than the £11k for the locals. So Im going with £8k its very likely to be lower

This would put the net contribution at £6.25k per migrant or £6.25 billion per million migrants. That is a contribution beyond what they take out.


So if the UK takes on 10 million migrants of working age its got another £62.5 billion for 'free'. That is £62.5 billion that can be spent on tax cuts for everyone or targeted tax cuts or it can be used for the NHS or whatever else (remember that isn't £62.5 billion to school and healthcare the migrants, they have already paid for that, that is £62.5 million on top of everything)

Migrants contribute a lot more than they take when you fully account for the fact that they push locals up pay bands.

It no longer matters. People were more convinced that Bangladeshi grandmothers were getting their cataracts done free on the NHS or Slovaks were only coming here to claim benefits and send riches home to non-resident children.

We're going to leave the EU and immigration will be much reduced. If that's bad for the economy or the 'native born' so be it.

The name of the game now is damage limitation.

Joestock

It takes a lot of capital up front to build hospitals schools houses roads - have we taken into account loss of green belt increased traffic pollution the list goes on and on. How could we sustain building an average size city every year.

cells

Joestock wrote: »

It takes a lot of capital up front to build hospitals schools houses roads - have we taken into account loss of green belt increased traffic pollution the list goes on and on. How could we sustain building an average size city every year.

we are living more dense mostly out of want (eg prices in dense inner London are a lot higher than less dense outer London)

Hospitals might take capital but we are the capital of capital and borrowing rates are just 0.8% a year and thats a 10 year fixed gilt. Clearly the migrants were paying a lot more in taxes than they take so the capital (mortgage if you like) would be paid off quickly very quickly.

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

It no longer matters. People were more convinced that Bangladeshi grandmothers were getting their cataracts done free on the NHS or Slovaks were only coming here to claim benefits and send riches home to non-resident children.

We're going to leave the EU and immigration will be much reduced. If that's bad for the economy or the 'native born' so be it.

The name of the game now is damage limitation.

I think a lot of for want of a better word idiots were thinking a leave vote means nil migration and no additional non English looking faces both are so stupid. the millions of foreigners here will have children (hopefully) and many will even do so with locals so we are going to get more non English faces and some half English ones too. The vote wont bring back 1950

Not to mention plenty of migrants and locals marry foreigners and bring them here. Plenty go live elsewhere for years or decades and build a life and have half forging kids and will come back.


anyway if we do exit I hope we keep some form of migration policy to allow the younger migrants to come as they are without a doubt a big net contributor to wealth and thus well being in this country. If there is a points based system for the EU I think simply being under 30 years old should get you the points you need and a sliding scale in the 30-40 age bad and maybe some negative points for people over 40 and very negative points for people over 45-50 maybe so that its nearly impossible for them. As mean as that sounds it is a simple economic argument and might appease some of the out votes.

Maybe some sort of employment criteria too but with the employment participation rate at circa 80% for EU migrants thats not going to stop more than 20%

Joestock

"So to use your analogy, you are running a cruise ship and it hits a wreck. Hundreds die because you did not provide life savers. Your defence is that these are austere times and you could only afford 90% of the required lifesavers.

Put it another way Austerity is responsible for poor services, not immigrants. Immigrants were just a convenient way of avoiding the issues and fomenting discontent with the EU. "

When we Brexit, who will you blame then for the lack of housing and state of NHS?

No to use my analogy the cruise ship doesn't need to hit a wreck it sinks under the weight of its passengers. There wasn't enough room or time to build the life boats. When we Brexit the pressure to build increased infrastructure will be reduced. Equals less pollution and demand on greenbelt.

cells

Joestock wrote: »

So to use your analogy, you are running a cruise ship and it hits a wreck. Hundreds die because you did not provide life savers. Your defence is that these are austere times and you could only afford 90% of the required lifesavers.

Put it another way Austerity is responsible for poor services, not immigrants. Immigrants were just a convenient way of avoiding the issues and fomenting discontent with the EU.

When we Brexit, who will you blame then for the lack of housing and state of NHS?

No to use my analogy the cruise ship doesn't need to hit a wreck it sinks under the weight of its passengers. There wasn't enough room or time to build the life boats.

D!jà vu
was just as bad first time I saw the analogy


First I dont accept the premise that the NHS is broken or that we lack for schools or hospitals or any other infrastructure. There is also no housing problem in 85% of the country. In the 15% that is London houses are expensive but even there its not a universal negative. For instance we could not regenerate as much of London as we have if we were still at 1995 London prices and the tax tax would have been substantially lower so other taxes would have had to be higher

EU migrants contributed a lot more in taxes than they needed spent on them

Also the UK throughout the last few hundred years has sent the world many many more migrants+their descendants than England has received in migrants. Migration means the UK population is now much lower than it otherwise would have been. some 40-70 million Americans are of UK decent not even counting the 10 million or so Australians and probably millions elsewhere.

So the UK would probably be closer to double its population without migration! That might sound crazy and unplausable England was only 2 million people in the 1500s and now its closer to 45 million so each migrant we sent out to the world a few hundred years ago is worth about 20 people now and we sent out huge numbers back then

justme111

cells wrote: »

people do pay via their taxes. its a choice if you want to spend that extra tax on hospitals or not

migrants make a much bigger contribution than most people realise as they allow locals to be pushed up the skills and pay scale

Now you are talking on a different topic. I pointed out how that public services is not an automatically adjustable system like tesco. No need to argue with me on utility of immigrants substituting one topic of discussion in which for another (mind , if you did not see fundamental difference between private business and government funded institutions I have little trust in your ability to calculate anything let alone such a complex issue.
Now , I do not have enough knowledge to calculate how useful each immigrant is.
I have enough sense though to see something does not add up in your calculations. If immigrants are so good why to have any limits? Abolish border control and visa systems. After all every immigrant is a net gain, right?
It would be about a billion of them , how much richer Britain would be !

Joestock

Exactly my point we do not have enough land mass.