Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn

Doshwaster

Herzlos wrote: »

If businesses have to pay migrants more, they'll want less of them. If they want less of them, less will come.

You could use that argument against raising the minimum wage. If businesses have to pay more they will employ fewer people regardless of where they are from.

Conrad

Labour prices rise when supply is constrained. Economics 101.

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

No Tricky I think you are confused if you think we can screen people so that we only allow morally upstanding tax payers in. At present we are not prepared to spend the dosh to screen our borders at all it seems! UKBA has experienced huge cuts. Part of my job is to get convicted criminals deported out of this country if they are high risk .....how hard do you think that is? You need reciprocal arrangements.... co-operation......goodwill is crucial! They get lawyers, they have human rights, they often have children and partners to consider. Cameron succeeded in getting Jamaica to build a prison to take convicted prisoners back .....that has had some impact in relation to that country but we did contribute to the building of the prison. These things cost lots of dosh! Only accepting people if they have a job of a certain income, only accepting people who have a job to go to....yeah right! Its so so simple isn't it on a forum when you can just spout forth about percentages and the economics of it all. Its all theorising nonsense spouted out by people who are in desk bound jobs, who need a dose of reality imo! Desk jockey economists....don't you just love 'em!

You just said that non-migrant and migrant tax avoidance is a problem.

You also say that you want to remain in the EU and be part of the FoM. So there is nothing to stop people coming here and increasing the amount of tax avoiding workers that HMRC has to deal with whilst we are scaling back and trying to reduce the deficit and hopefully the debt.

That is the confusion I was pointing out. You clearly cannot have it both ways. Either you want to stop FoM and therefore not increase the size of the tax avoidance problem, or you want to allow FoM in which case you don't see tax avoidance as a problem or you'll need to increase spending on HMRC and therefore borrowing?

A classic case of migrants increasing service and infrastructure spend. Which do you choose?

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

Is it simple but lefties love to complicate things.


Canada has a very rigorous immigration process, including long exams. Massive Canada happens to want high numbers currently, that's their choice, they have control.


Lots of nations manage immigration very well and have super strict rules such as not allowing citizenship or benefits for decades. Singapore deports those that stop working after 12 weeks, job done, no ooman rights pantomime, love it. Things are simple given the right mindset

Nothing to do with being left! How well has this Govmt managed immigration since 2010! Has Canada got thousands of its own people living in Spain? Has Singapore? We are not Canada or Singapore geographically, culturally, economically. You are not comparing like with like. Like I said desk jockeys. I note you didn't provide a solution either to the issues I raised!

Herzlos

Doshwaster wrote: »

You could use that argument against raising the minimum wage. If businesses have to pay more they will employ fewer people regardless of where they are from.

That's exactly why the Tories were talking about reducing the minimum wage in some areas as part of their grand schemes to help busineses/the economy.

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You just said that non-migrant and migrant tax avoidance is a problem.

You also say that you want to remain in the EU and be part of the FoM. So there is nothing to stop people coming here and increasing the amount of tax avoiding workers that HMRC has to deal with whilst we are scaling back and trying to reduce the deficit and hopefully the debt.

That is the confusion I was pointing out. You clearly cannot have it both ways. Either you want to stop FoM and therefore not increase the size of the tax avoidance problem, or you want to allow FoM in which case you don't see tax avoidance as a problem or you'll need to increase spending on HMRC and therefore borrowing?

A classic case of migrants increasing service and infrastructure spend. Which do you choose?

Do you think controlling freedom of movement will control tax avoidance....really! Funding HMRC is far more relevant. The gains from having access to the single market are far more significant than anything else in any event.....so we are arguing over an insignificant aspect of the issue. Wait 'til those tariffs kick in!:eek:

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Do you think controlling freedom of movement will control tax avoidance....really! Funding HMRC is far more relevant. The gains from having access to the single market are far more significant than anything else in any event.....so we are arguing over an insignificant aspect of the issue. Wait 'til those tarrifs kick in!

I was picking up on the point you made about tax avoidance only.

If we were able to stop people coming here before they had a job, it would significantly reduce the amount of cash in hand work HMRC would have to deal with in future would it not? Therefore reducing the workload on HMRC, meaning less government expenditure on HMRC.

We can still have access to the single market without capitulating to the freedom of movement demands. But we digress, do you agree than being in complete control of the border would reduce the amount of people coming in to work cash in hand and therefore avoid taxation? If not, why?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You clearly cannot have it both ways. Either you want to stop FoM and therefore not increase the size of the tax avoidance problem, or you want to allow FoM in which case you don't see tax avoidance as a problem or you'll need to increase spending on HMRC and therefore borrowing?

Why can't be be for FoM and want the government to do something about tax avoidance for everybody? The 2 things aren't directly related.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If we were able to stop people coming here before they had a job, it would significantly reduce the amount of cash in hand work HMRC would have to deal with in future would it not?

Not really. Almost all of the cash-in-hand trade I'm aware of is carried out by people who have jobs and do extra on the side.

The "benefits claimant whilst working cash in hand" trope, whilst it exists, is grossly overestimated by the media/government looking for someone to demonize. It's more likely someone who's doing a bit of work at the weekend, or forgetting to put something through the books.

Plus, some 54% of EU migrants already have jobs or university courses confirmed before arrival [https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/].

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

It's called 'exploitation' of Labour. Look it up, have a think about how things might change if it was ended and try to reach upwards out of your own bigotry;)

My post was whether paying immigrants higher wages would lead to fewer coming, as Mr Corbyn seemed to be implying.
As hundreds of my posts thave made clear, I am all for higher productivity that led to higher wages: a good reason to stop the flood of immigrant cheap labour.