Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Thrugelmir

GreatApe wrote: »

What a stupid post.

Then you need to get closer to reality. Migration is more often or not for economic reasons. Why do highly qualified people go to work in Qatar? It's not for the 45 degree heat and dust storms, or the social life.

antrobus

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

The only certainty is decades of a political sh*tstorm no matter what we do. I prefer betraying the brexiters because their ideas are half baked, an awful lot of them will be dead sooner rather than later, and there should never have been a vote where an option was against something rather than for an opposing idea. The question on the referendum was like if a general election was reduced to the choice of 'Conservative' or 'Not Conservative'. How happy would everyone be if Labour won by that question?!

The referendum question was;

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

What in God's name is wrong with that? Remain or leave, it's a binary option. There are only two choices.

GreatApe

posh*spice wrote: »

Right. Cough.

And when your kids can't afford a house because the government is allowing a million people into the uk every 3 years - 4 cities the size of newcastle - and we are all living three generations in a house like we did in the 30s. Will you still be pro migration then?

When will you remoaners realise you are just robbing your children and yourselves of a future?

We don't have the space for a million people every three years. Our kids are being forced out of their own home.

Wake up. The liberal elites have brain washed you.

I don't think its correct to say I am pro migration

I would be anti migrant for those older than 30 definitely 35 and I would be quite anti for those who didn't have conversational level English. Other than that I would be happy to see even a million per year arrive.

As for houses the locals are sorted already most British kids will have housing handed to them by their parents and grand parents for free. Housing that was paid off decades ago. The main reason for this is that the locals the British born women have fewer than 2 kids (o think its about 1.7 for the locals) and their grandparents are mostly homeowners. Therefore British born kids with British born parents are very likely to inherit housing (or equivalent sums). In fact they are likely to inherit more than one house. So irrespective of migrant levels the locals have housing sorted. I accept some 20% of the older population don't own their own home so can't pass much down but we have some social stock for those people and also the local kids of they are unlucky to be in the 20% who's grand parents don't own well there is a 80% chance their grand parent in-laws own so an 80% chance their wife/husband will inherit free hosuign


I did vote remain but only marginally I can see and accept the faults of the EU my st problem was the UK was a big net contributor primarily because England has not as Much farmland as France or Germany etc. I would say I was 60% remain 40% leave. However I do not see a problem with high migration levels especially if we could have high migration levels for fit able 20-30 year olds and limit it almost completely for those 40 or over.

antrobus

mrginge wrote: »

...Perhaps he's not as clever as he likes to make out?

Perhaps?

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you need to get closer to reality. Migration is more often or not for economic reasons. Why do highly qualified people go to work in Qatar? It's not for the 45 degree heat and dust storms, or the social life.

So what I've migrated almost a dozen times for economic reasons what's the problem ?

Separately what's worse me spending £50k on a foreign car or a Polish man collecting your refuse sending £50pw back to his kids?

Rusty_Shackleton

mrginge wrote: »

Poor old rusty doesn't realise that he's just the same as that daily mail reader who also believes everything they read in their newspaper of choice.

Perhaps he's not as clever as he likes to make out?

You could reasonably make that assumption if I replied to your accusations that Owen Jones stokes hatred with 'nope, thats not true because the Guardian publish it', but I didnt. I asked you for examples to back up your claim and broke down and countered your argument.

But thanks for confirming you cant back up your arguments. I felt it would be rude to just assume it. :beer:

antrobus

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Similarly i said nothing about restricting press freedoms, just that to own a British newspaper you should be resident and pay taxes here....

Oddly enough, I think we would have to leave the EU in order for you to implement that proposal.

Ironic, ain't it?:)

Rusty_Shackleton

antrobus wrote: »

The referendum question was;

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

What in God's name is wrong with that? Remain or leave, it's a binary option. There are only two choices.

If you read back to my earlier posts, the problem is that leave voters will never be happy with the outcome, too many groups with competing ideas of what leave means. Lets say we're all going on holiday together and we vote on where to go... We've been to spain the last few years, so we have a vote with 2 options, spain or not spain. Not spain wins because we fancy a change, but i have a perverse sense of fun and decide to book us all in at butlins in Skegness. Are you happy about the outcome?

Voting against something blindly* rather than for a specific alternative is a terrible idea - its too vulnerable to highjacking and guarantees an awful lot of losers.

*in terms of voting options, not getting into a discussion of people knowing or not about the topic being voted on.

GreatApe

posh*spice wrote: »

Right. Cough.

And when your kids can't afford a house because the government is allowing a million people into the uk every 3 years - 4 cities the size of newcastle - and we are all living three generations in a house like we did in the 30s. Will you still be pro migration then?

When will you remoaners realise you are just robbing your children and yourselves of a future?

We don't have the space for a million people every three years. Our kids are being forced out of their own home.

Wake up. The liberal elites have brain washed you.

In the UK some £200 billion is gifted/inherited annually. A little over half of that wealth is residential property and most the rest is more liquid assets like cash savings accounts and shares etc.

The locals, the British born kids with British born parents have an easy life they will inherit the wealth of generations. The migrants they will have to sweep our streets make our coffees gut our fish and deliver our parcels. If you want your son to be the fish gutter and your daughter to be the street sweep let's get rid of the migrants.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Greatape you seem to be suggesting that immigrants consuming goods and services here is a bad thing? Thats wrong, we want them to buy things, it drives economic output. The main argument against immigrants with regards to consumption (not to say that you or I agree on it or not) is that they consume public resources (education, healthcare etc.) without contributing as much through tax.

Mrginge, with the example of Russia Today and Al Jazeera I couldnt agree more. All im suggesting is that the news media should be treated in the same way many countries treat critical infrastructure, in that foreign ownership and control is forbidden. Whether you're on the left or right, I would have thought everyone should be concerned about foreign propaganda and influence, whether from state actors or billionaires. If the USSR were about today, how would you feel about them controlling a major newspaper in the UK?

Its difficult to do a full honest accounting of the situation because the lower skilled migrants push the locals up the skill and pay scales

For instance a family (local or migrant) who has a min wage job say collecting refuse will look like a huge burden. They pay little to no income tax and not a lot on VAT and other taxes. They may even be entitled to and receive tax credits etc (I should be able to stop here as we can agree his work is vital so how can a person doing a vital job for society be a burden to society...but I will continue)

However let's imagine that family just disappeared, remember it can be a local family or a migrant family it doesn't matter to the outcome. Or rather let's imagine 1,000 such families and they all disappeared overnight.

On the first round of accounting things look fantastic a little to no tax paying family receiving tax credits or benefits 1,000/such families just disappeared. But things don't stop at the first round

Their 1,000 jobs still need filling as refuse collections are not optional.
Were do the people come from to do that vital necessary but low pay work?
Well all the people who used to provide for their needs and wants, eg teacher to teach their kids doctors to provide healthcare solicitors to provide legal services etc etc they have lost their jobs since 1,000 families have disappeared their services are now excess to requirement. They will have to take up the refuse jobs left by the disappeared families.

Now I'm not saying a doctor will have to become a street sweep.
Instead there might be a chain 50 links long. The doctor might have not studied medicine (fewer people fewer doctors needed fewer trained) and he may have studied something else which is a little lower status and lower pay let's say he became a teacher instead. The teacher who was fired might have been a teaching assistant and the teaching assistant who is now surplus to needs might have been the street sweep etc

Basically migrants (or locals) that take low paid work that needs doing although they pay little or no taxes. They push everyone else up a bit. If they disappeared everyone else would slide down a bit.

As such a street sweep may pay little to no tax but a fair accounting of the situation I feel would say he pays the average tax. So while his paycheck might say zero income tax he pays in effect about £20k in taxes even if his income is only £15k a year. Most of that £20k in taxes is wrongly attributed to others pay cheques