Thank Goodness Brexit will not halt immigration

triathlon

smipsy wrote: »

before we start the inevitable great hobby of vilifying these incredibly evil and disgusting EU immigrants, do you know what the percentage of British people on benefits who "don't contribute to the economy" is? I suppose you don't care because "EU SCUM IS STEALING MY MONEY"

never mind the fact that EU people pay in more than they take out, which is more than can be said for many other types of immigrants (and many British people as well). but well, who cares about facts, let's just HATE these dirty rats

What we need is the so called British downtrodden to follow the example of 99% of the eastern Europeans that have come over to the UK, I have never had the slightest problem with any of them that I have rented out to, hand on heart, I prefer them. I once had one of these "single non working young mothers", never again, for someone who never paid a penny towards her rent she was by far the most self entitled and biggest complainer of the lot.

triathlon

Takedap wrote: »

Of course. Poverty is a lifestyle choice........

22 year olds that cannot look after themselves and so decide to have 3 children while on welfare, yep, that really helps their cause.

Mmm, thinking about it, it actually does

lisyloo

fatbeetle wrote: »

How do you feel about paying to keep someone from abroad who has never contributed to the UK economy?

Too vague a question.
There’s a big difference between genuine asylum seekers, genuine disabled people and those who are just plain lazy milking the system.

As a sweeping generalisation I’d say the majority are willing and happy to support genuine cases with reasonable levels of support and a hand-up but do not wish to support luxury or those who simply don’t want to work.

Of course that covers a massive amount of detail.
We have almost full employment so I don’t think the lazy should occupy our thoughts as the more larger just about managing and hard working group.

Personally I don’t think privacy is an automatic right for those asking for a hand out or up. Shelter, safety, Heath care, food and water are basic rights.
Genuine asylum seekers fleeing violence shouldn’t have an issue IMO with sharing if they are offered safety.

What’s the thinking behind privacy as a right at others expense?
I’d like to be educated please.

Takedap

triathlon wrote: »

22 year olds that cannot look after themselves and so decide to have 3 children while on welfare, yep, that really helps their cause.

Mmm, thinking about it, it actually does

You really think that's the description of the average person on benefits?


I hope you don't have a change in circumstances that results in you falling on hard times.

MobileSaver

Takedap wrote: »

Of course. Poverty is a lifestyle choice........

Of course real poverty is pretty much a fiction in the UK.

The problem with the poverty statistics bandied around by the mainstream media is that you could give every UK adult £20,000 tomorrow and the poverty figures would hardly change due to the way the figure is calculated...

Would you class someone who received £20,000 tomorrow as being "in poverty" in any way, shape or form?

lisyloo

MobileSaver wrote: »

Would you class someone who received £20,000 tomorrow as being "in poverty" in any way, shape or form?

In general No but if they had a family to support and disabilities (which meant paying for help with cleaning, laundry etc.) then it might not be enough to live on.

I agree that in general we don’t have real poverty apart from a minority who slip through the net due to complex addiction or ptsd reasons.

In general people in the uk have basic rights like shelter and free health care. We need to do more about the tiny but increasing minority that slip they the net.

MisterMotivated

MobileSaver wrote: »

A house isn't just a pile of bricks that you buy and can leave alone for the next x years.

A house needs insurance, almost certainly bought from a British broker
A house needs electricity, probably bought from a British supplier
A house needs heating fuel, probably bought from a British supplier
A house needs maintenance, probably provided by British tradespeople
A house requires Council Tax to be paid by the occupier, all of which goes to the UK coffers

Etc.

So regardless of who buys a house there will be an additional consumption of resources and services and some if not most of those will be supplied by the UK which therefore benefits the entire country.

Of course the house will still exist and will require upkeep, insurance, etc, regardless who owns it. My point is that someone outside the country who 'invests' in it is aiming to profit from it, ultimately at the expense of someone inside the country. Therefore it being foreign owned does not bring 'extra wealth' to our country in the long term.

Herzlos

fatbeetle wrote: »

How do you feel about paying to keep someone from abroad who has never contributed to the UK economy?

I've got no problem with it. More specifically, I'm happy to pay for a tiny amount of 'bad eggs' to ensure those that genuinely need help are covered.



As you said, only 2.2% of claimants are EU nationals, who may or may not have contributed to the economy before. We could always have used our powers to remove those that never contributed.

MobileSaver

MisterMotivated wrote: »

Therefore it being foreign owned does not bring 'extra wealth' to our country in the long term.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

Put it another way, if tomorrow we banned "foreigners" from buying UK property do you honestly think the country would somehow become "wealthier?" In your eyes we become wealthy by reducing demand? How does that work?

Your assumption seems to be that 100% of foreign owners will "in the long term" sell at a profit and then remove 100% of that profit out of the UK back to their homeland. Similarly you seem to be suggesting that in 100% of cases that profit will be sufficient to cover all the upkeep, insurance and taxes paid on the property while under foreign ownership. It's nonsensical.

triathlon

MobileSaver wrote: »

Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

Put it another way, if tomorrow we banned "foreigners" from buying UK property do you honestly think the country would somehow become "wealthier?" In your eyes we become wealthy by reducing demand? How does that work?

Your assumption seems to be that 100% of foreign owners will "in the long term" sell at a profit and then remove 100% of that profit out of the UK back to their homeland. Similarly you seem to be suggesting that in 100% of cases that profit will be sufficient to cover all the upkeep, insurance and taxes paid on the property while under foreign ownership. It's nonsensical.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are going a little more Japanese in the coming decades, but probably as not as populated, though I do not rule it out, I am basing my business plan on it happening. We are going to see 10 million added to our population quite rapidly with 100 million around 2050, then I will not care after that.

Space is going to be at a premium, it will get more expensive and smaller and I am sure we will get more creative on how live together. Property and investing in property has a long bright future yet, anyone thinking it will crash(like some have for two decades now) are blind as to what is happening in front of them