Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

if we wanted to half our debt per person we could import 65 million people
if we wanted to reduce our debt per person by 75% then we would need about 200,million immigrants

if we wanted to reduce our debt to GDP ratio by these amounts we would need these immigrant to be producing goods and services at least to the current average level.

of course this would cause a huge increase in essential imports (food etc) and no necessary increase in exports. We would need to fund these essential imports by foreign borrowing.

how many new people do you think we need?

More the better for the Uk economics right now. In your world the country would be better off with just you in it. Believe me, you're wrong.

padington

mrginge wrote: »

The idea that immigration is going to pay off our debts is beyond ridiculous and not bourne out by any historical evidence anywhere, ever.

Google it, you are wrong.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

The idea that immigration is going to pay off our debts is beyond ridiculous and not bourne out by any historical evidence anywhere, ever
.

This is not a black and white issue as some pretend. Immigration, particularly short term immigration, has its benefits. In general, younger immigrants are more likely to make a net contribution to the economy than the aging UK population and that can help reduce debt.

Freedom of Movement is an imperfect solution I accept. I think we need to allow some immigration, for humane reasons and to attract those who will benefit the UK economy. Equally we need to ensure that some migration is short term and does not confer a citizenship or permanent rights of residence.

mrginge wrote: »

The idea that immigration is going to pay off our debts is beyond ridiculous and not bourne out by any historical evidence anywhere, ever
.

I think you will find that the US economy operates on the basis of this "ridiculous" idea. We clearly have more geographical constraints but proportionately the US has a higher foreign born population than UK, FRA, GER, ITA.

CBO estimates that fixing our broken immigration system will reduce federal deficits by about $200 billion over the next 10 years, and about $700 billion in the second decade.

CBO also found that commonsense immigration reform will increase real GDP by 3.3% in 2023, and 5.4% in 2033, a real increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033, due to higher labor force participation, increased capital investment, and increased productivity resulting from “technological advancements, such as new innovations and improvements in the production process.”!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/06/18/cbo-report-immigration-reform-will-shrink-deficit-and-grow-economy

The US also controls its borders. I realise that immigration cessation is seen as a panacea by those who fear cultural diversity in this country, but we do need to recognise that immigration has some benefits in the context of an ageing population.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

This is not a black and white issue as some pretend. Immigration, particularly short term immigration, has its benefits. In general, younger immigrants are more likely to make a net contribution to the economy than the aging UK population and that can help reduce debt.

Freedom of Movement is an imperfect solution I accept. I think we need to allow some immigration, for humane reasons and to attract those who will benefit the UK economy. Equally we need to ensure that some migration is short term and does not confer a citizenship or permanent rights of residence.

I think you will find that the US economy operates on the basis of this "ridiculous" idea. We clearly have more geographical constraints but proportionately the US has a higher foreign born population than UK, FRA, GER, ITA.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/06/18/cbo-report-immigration-reform-will-shrink-deficit-and-grow-economy

The US also controls its borders. I realise that immigration cessation is seen as a panacea by those who fear cultural diversity in this country, but we do need to recognise that immigration has some benefits in the context of an ageing population.

There is no question that immigration brings benefits. However like all
economic or social policies it also brings costs. The issue is that we have restricted our ability to manage the negative aspects. There is a delusional view that anyone who is against FoM is asking for zero immigration. That is not the majority view IMO.

As for highlighting the US as an example of debt reduction through immigration, you really should read the detail behind your link. Specifically around the amount of increased immigration, the timescale it would be based on, the amount of the proposed benefit, and the longer term conclusions that are drawn. Then compare that to current US debt.

Matt_L

mrginge wrote: »

There is no question that immigration brings benefits. However like all
economic or social policies it also brings costs. The issue is that we have restricted our ability to manage the negative aspects. There is a delusional view that anyone who is against FoM is asking for zero immigration. That is not the majority view IMO.

As for highlighting the US as an example of debt reduction through immigration, you really should read the detail behind your link. Specifically around the amount of increased immigration, the timescale it would be based on, the amount of the proposed benefit, and the longer term conclusions that are drawn. Then compare that to current US debt.

Exactly, myself and the many i know who don't believe in FOM would still like to see immigration, just with the simple ability to control such immigration from time to time...

Zxcv_Bnm

Corbyn is a laughable loser. Too strong to shift, too useless to win, and when he is booted he'll be replaced by another loser exactly like him.

davomcdave

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

Corbyn is a laughable loser. Too strong to shift, too useless to win, and when he is booted he'll be replaced by another loser exactly like him.

You know he's in trouble when more people that voted Labout in 2015 don't know who the best PM would be than think Corbyn would be!!!
.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/these-stark-new-figures-show-jeremy-corbyn-is-leading-labour-towards-disaster-2017-1?r=UK&IR=T

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mrginge wrote: »

There is no question that immigration brings benefits. However like all
economic or social policies it also brings costs. The issue is that we have restricted our ability to manage the negative aspects.

However the fact remains that EU immigration - in the quantities of skilled and unskilled we've had, in the numbers we've had, and to the locations we've had them come, has resulted in a net financial benefit to the UK public finances of billions of pounds per year.

EU Immigrants have subsidised the rest of us.

It is hardly the fault of those EU immigrants who pay in more than they take out, or of the businesses that employ them to alleviate staffing shortages and grow the economy and tax base, that the UK government has chosen to take that whopping subsidy and spend it on keeping taxes lower for the rest of us rather than investing it in infrastructure to alleviate public concerns.

There is a delusional view that anyone who is against FoM is asking for zero immigration. That is not the majority view IMO.

So if the government 'took back control' of EU immigration and then decided, having spoken to businesses and job creators, that more EU immigration was needed in broadly the same mix of skilled and unskilled as we get today....

You'd be absolutely fine with that?

I doubt it....

BarleyGB

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

However the fact remains that EU immigration - in the quantities of skilled and unskilled we've had, in the numbers we've had, and to the locations we've had them come, has resulted in a net financial benefit to the UK public finances of billions of pounds per year.

EU Immigrants have subsidised the rest of us.

It is hardly the fault of those EU immigrants who pay in more than they take out, or of the businesses that employ them to alleviate staffing shortages and grow the economy and tax base, that the UK government has chosen to take that whopping subsidy and spend it on keeping taxes lower for the rest of us rather than investing it in infrastructure to alleviate public concerns.

Can you evidence these facts (not political claims), id like to see a research paper which provides the details.

Filo25

BarleyGB wrote: »

Can you evidence these facts (not political claims), id like to see a research paper which provides the details.

From a very quick google

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Its not exactly surprising given that most EU immigrants tend to be relatively young and economically active