Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

More people -> more demand on infrastructure.

Lorries trundling endelessly around. As factories work to JIT with the depots situated all across Europe.

Herzlos

More people also means more money circulating the economy and more tax. Unless you're implying that these additional people earn and spend no money, despite the research showing a net economic gain?

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lorries trundling endelessly around. As factories work to JIT with the depots situated all across Europe.

1960s classic tv program quote : "I'm not a number. I'm a free man!"
(The Prisoner)

2010s classic social media ad : "I'm not a number. I'm an Amazon QR code!"
(Cleggbook.com)

:rotfl:

Herzlos

Rinoa wrote: »

A very interesting report commissioned and paid for by FairfuelUK, who campaign for lower fuel taxes and better roads.

Well that certainly trumps my link to the French Government's report on their ailing infrastructure.

The 2 links aren't contradictory. French roads have problems, with about 12% of infrastructure needing repair (and thus 88% being alright). British roads are worse.

Or are fairfuel lying to get the government to spend more on road maintenance?

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

More people also means more money circulating the economy and more tax. Unless you're implying that these additional people earn and spend no money, despite the research showing a net economic gain?

Have the courage of your convictions then.

Scotland is pretty empty. Campaign for PM May to import 25 million Mexicans into the Highlands in the next 12 months.

You will be celebrated for the transformation of Scotland to an economic powerhouse!

(...and you become bessie mates with Trump)

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Herzlos View Post
More people also means more money circulating the economy and more tax. Unless you're implying that these additional people earn and spend no money, despite the research showing a net economic gain?

That's a simplistic view. They might come to the UK, indeed work hard and yet remit their savings back home. Same principle as to why people have worked in the Middle East for decades. Economic migrants have no loyalty.

The UK's national pastime is to reduce their personal tax liability. Everyone complains. No one wants to pay.

cogito

Rinoa wrote: »

A very interesting report commissioned and paid for by FairfuelUK, who campaign for lower fuel taxes and better roads.

Well that certainly trumps my link to the French Government's report on their ailing infrastructure.

I fail to understand why I have to pay to use the roads in most EU countries when lorries from EU countries use UK roads for free. The Irish are the worst culprits as they simply use our roads as a short cut to mainland Europe. If these vehicles had to pay an equivalent amount to use our roads as UK registered vehicles do, it would go a long way towards paying for the upkeep of our own roads.

kabayiri

cogito wrote: »

I fail to understand why I have to pay to use the roads in most EU countries when lorries from EU countries use UK roads for free. The Irish are the worst culprits as they simply use our roads as a short cut to mainland Europe. If these vehicles had to pay an equivalent amount to use our roads as UK registered vehicles do, it would go a long way towards paying for the upkeep of our own roads.

"a six-axle, 44-tonne truck is over 138,000 times more damaging than a typical, small, 1 tonne car (such as a Ford Fiesta) with two axles."

https://bettertransport.org.uk/blog/better-transport/lorries-cause-more-damage-roads-cars

Seems reasonable to me to charge them by the mile.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Have the courage of your convictions then.

Scotland is pretty empty. Campaign for PM May to import 25 million Mexicans into the Highlands in the next 12 months.

You will be celebrated for the transformation of Scotland to an economic powerhouse!

(...and you become bessie mates with Trump)

We've always been pro-migrant, we need it up here to deal with the population decline.


Though presumably you can see the difference between taking on migrants at the current UK rate of ~250,000/year net (from memory) and a 500% population increase overnight. We'd happily take them but it might take a while to support the infrastructure. You'll claim this is hypocritical since that's your concern about EU migrants, but it's a matter of scope. Decent planning should be able to handle a 0.5% population increase annually, but no planning can handle a 500% population increase.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a simplistic view. They might come to the UK, indeed work hard and yet remit their savings back home. Same principle as to why people have worked in the Middle East for decades. Economic migrants have no loyalty.

Sort of. Most of those migrants presumably pay income tax, council tax, and still need to buy food/clothes/services whilst in the UK. They may be sending some of it back but they can't be in the system without interacting with it.

The UK's national pastime is to reduce their personal tax liability. Everyone complains. No one wants to pay.

Very true. But that's hardly the fault of migrants is it? It's a systematic fault that makes it possible, and it's only really the very wealthy that can do it to any significant margin (for instance I can have an ISA and a pension contribution, but it's not worth me having shell companies and offshore accounts).

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

Look, there are millions more people here now, at a time when we have seen years of cutbacks to local government.

More people -> more demand on infrastructure.

I'm not exactly sure what outcome you were expecting.

Well given that the extra people have been proven to contribute more per capita, the outcome I would expect would be more money per capita to spend on infrastructure rather than less.

I'm not a supporter of high immigration personally, but in pure economic terms it should be positive.

You say we've been screwed over, but the above logic suggests its by our own recent governments failure to invest all the economic success we've had back into the country.