The Labour Government

bluenova said:
You'd think the simple fact that the graph shows that a typical non-migrant is "more" of a net cost would be a bit of an indicator that it's useless.

It's one of the odd things about the right wing - that so many are happy to think of themselves as a cost to the economy, grateful that the wealthy are supporting the rest of us (and I'm not suggesting this is @Hertzblue, but I do know other people who buy into it completely).
Click to expand...
I have certainly not been a cost to the economy though now in my later years I daresay I will become one,they can take it out of what they have had from me, I am sure they will remain in profit.

I said in my earlier reply that the data is limited but it is amusing that when the Treasury have maintained that migration is a net positive for the economy for the last 20 years, I have no doubt that the likes of yourself and Vic will have lapped that up. Now the same organisation about turns and says , ah well actually that might not be the case , your first reaction is to claim they must have got it wrong lol.

You appear to have a problem accepting that there is any negative aspects to mass immigration whether that be in terms of crime, economics or whatever regardless of the evidence . I have attached below a link to a recent Dutch study on the economics of migration to the Netherlands ( I did post it a while ago ) it is the best in terms of detail I have seen and is the sort of thing we need to do ourselves. It covers the economics of type of migrant , where they originate from , culture , quite illuminating. Something to get your teeth into.



 
Hertzblue said:
I have certainly not been a cost to the economy though now in my later years I daresay I will become one,they can take it out of what they have had from me, I am sure they will remain in profit.

I said in my earlier reply that the data is limited but it is amusing that when the Treasury have maintained that migration is a net positive for the economy for the last 20 years, I have no doubt that the likes of yourself and Vic will have lapped that up. Now the same organisation about turns and says , ah well actually that might not be the case , your first reaction is to claim they must have got it wrong lol.

You appear to have a problem accepting that there is any negative aspects to mass immigration whether that be in terms of crime, economics or whatever regardless of the evidence . I have attached below a link to a recent Dutch study on the economics of migration to the Netherlands ( I did post it a while ago ) it is the best in terms of detail I have seen and is the sort of thing we need to do ourselves. It covers the economics of type of migrant , where they originate from , culture , quite illuminating. Something to get your teeth into.



Click to expand...

For those not willing to read the entire document I will summarise as follows:

Economic migrants - net positive in fiscal terms.

Refugees/family migrants - net negative in fiscal terms.

They also have those arriving in the country to study as a net negative. Personally, I would dispute that one as in the UK those here to study are shelling out fees for their courses and tend not to stay beyond the duration of their course.

Refugees/asylum seekers will be a negative given the cost to the state in processing their claims, so never likely to recoup that initial outlay. This is self evident.

The greater the disparity of cultural background also correlates to cost. This is interesting as commonwealth immigration blurs that disparity. English is widely spoken and there is a familiarity with British culture or at least an idealised perception of British culture. For arrivals from the Indian subcontinent, Netherlands would be much more alien.

What else? If your parents are low achievers, the likelihood is that your children will be as well. We see that here irrespective of ethnic background, although we are often told that white working class boys are being left behind. Poverty is a drag on mobility and generational achievement is again self evident.

In short, the report concludes that the best immigrants are European and Protestant ie as similar as possible to the native population. We should join the EU and take advantage of that. What do you think? :)
 
BobKowalski said:
For those not willing to read the entire document I will summarise as follows:

Economic migrants - net positive in fiscal terms.

Refugees/family migrants - net negative in fiscal terms.

They also have those arriving in the country to study as a net negative. Personally, I would dispute that one as in the UK those here to study are shelling out fees for their courses and tend not to stay beyond the duration of their course.

Refugees/asylum seekers will be a negative given the cost to the state in processing their claims, so never likely to recoup that initial outlay. This is self evident.

The greater the disparity of cultural background also correlates to cost. This is interesting as commonwealth immigration blurs that disparity. English is widely spoken and there is a familiarity with British culture or at least an idealised perception of British culture. For arrivals from the Indian subcontinent, Netherlands would be much more alien.

What else? If your parents are low achievers, the likelihood is that your children will be as well. We see that here irrespective of ethnic background, although we are often told that white working class boys are being left behind. Poverty is a drag on mobility and generational achievement is again self evident.

In short, the report concludes that the best immigrants are European and Protestant ie as similar as possible to the native population. We should join the EU and take advantage of that. What do you think? :)
Click to expand...

We are allowed to let in anyone we want as you well.know, we don't need the EU for that.

Some are even in favour of no restrictions at all, well not some just you:-)
 
Hertzblue said:
I have certainly not been a cost to the economy though now in my later years I daresay I will become one,they can take it out of what they have had from me, I am sure they will remain in profit.

I said in my earlier reply that the data is limited but it is amusing that when the Treasury have maintained that migration is a net positive for the economy for the last 20 years, I have no doubt that the likes of yourself and Vic will have lapped that up. Now the same organisation about turns and says , ah well actually that might not be the case , your first reaction is to claim they must have got it wrong lol.

You appear to have a problem accepting that there is any negative aspects to mass immigration whether that be in terms of crime, economics or whatever regardless of the evidence . I have attached below a link to a recent Dutch study on the economics of migration to the Netherlands ( I did post it a while ago ) it is the best in terms of detail I have seen and is the sort of thing we need to do ourselves. It covers the economics of type of migrant , where they originate from , culture , quite illuminating. Something to get your teeth into.



Click to expand...
How do you know? Have you never used the services your taxes go towards?

Schools, child benefit, libraries, roads, any of the emergency services, the NHS, state pension......

I genuinely don't know what the break even point is. I was in hospital earlier in the year and I reckon my 2 week stay with procedures cost the NHS around £35000, more than I will pay in income tax this year. The "profit" very quickly runs out.
 
Hertzblue said:
Bit presumptuous to claim the majority on here would be a net cost but not relevant, if you are working on an average some will be below and some not. I agree this is an extremely rough measure but it's all we have from our Treasury who have maintained the facade that migration must be economically beneficial. It is however a significant piece of work in that the Treasury are changing tack, they realise the game is up.
Click to expand...

According to the graph you gave, and the methodology, its not at all presumptuous.

With the graph you presented, the majority of the country are net costs. The graph even shows a typical UK citizen as a bigger net cost than the average migrant.

My point was that these figures are only ever part of the equation.
 
Hertzblue said:
I have certainly not been a cost to the economy though now in my later years I daresay I will become one,they can take it out of what they have had from me, I am sure they will remain in profit.

I said in my earlier reply that the data is limited but it is amusing that when the Treasury have maintained that migration is a net positive for the economy for the last 20 years, I have no doubt that the likes of yourself and Vic will have lapped that up. Now the same organisation about turns and says , ah well actually that might not be the case , your first reaction is to claim they must have got it wrong lol.

You appear to have a problem accepting that there is any negative aspects to mass immigration whether that be in terms of crime, economics or whatever regardless of the evidence . I have attached below a link to a recent Dutch study on the economics of migration to the Netherlands ( I did post it a while ago ) it is the best in terms of detail I have seen and is the sort of thing we need to do ourselves. It covers the economics of type of migrant , where they originate from , culture , quite illuminating. Something to get your teeth into.



Click to expand...

My first reaction isn't to claim they've got it wrong.

I understand how these calculations are made. I don't think you're likely to have been a cost to society - but I don't think most people are either. However, under a pure calculation of the tax we personally pay, minus schooling, healthcare, benefits etc., the majority end up being classed that way. You could live your whole life on above average wages, and never claim benefits till you retire. and still show up as a "net cost" on that graph. That's the bit that's nonsense.

Your own graph also showed that the average migrant, appeared to be better for the economy than the average UK citizen. Does that not suggest that it might not be quite as clear cut as you believe?
 
BobKowalski said:
For those not willing to read the entire document I will summarise as follows:

Economic migrants - net positive in fiscal terms.

Refugees/family migrants - net negative in fiscal terms.

They also have those arriving in the country to study as a net negative. Personally, I would dispute that one as in the UK those here to study are shelling out fees for their courses and tend not to stay beyond the duration of their course.

Refugees/asylum seekers will be a negative given the cost to the state in processing their claims, so never likely to recoup that initial outlay. This is self evident.

The greater the disparity of cultural background also correlates to cost. This is interesting as commonwealth immigration blurs that disparity. English is widely spoken and there is a familiarity with British culture or at least an idealised perception of British culture. For arrivals from the Indian subcontinent, Netherlands would be much more alien.

What else? If your parents are low achievers, the likelihood is that your children will be as well. We see that here irrespective of ethnic background, although we are often told that white working class boys are being left behind. Poverty is a drag on mobility and generational achievement is again self evident.

In short, the report concludes that the best immigrants are European and Protestant ie as similar as possible to the native population. We should join the EU and take advantage of that. What do you think? :)
Click to expand...
A lot of that was in the opening summary! Thanks for summarising the rest.

Plus the quote from a previous study that says a lot depends on the assumptions made.

Meanwhile a "think tank" opposed to immigration came up with this:

"Nearly between 55 and 60% of working migrants earn less than the OBR’s definition of a “low wage” (depending on which iteration of “25th percentile” one chooses to assess).

"Over 50% of those earning less £26,200 come from just three countries: India, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. A further 36% come from Ghana, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nepal, and South Africa."

That sounds to me like a list of countries providing the UK with a lot of NHS and care home staff. If they're a net cost to the UK the stats really are nonsense.
 
Last edited:
hampshireblue said:
How do you know? Have you never used the services your taxes go towards?

Schools, child benefit, libraries, roads, any of the emergency services, the NHS, state pension......

I genuinely don't know what the break even point is. I was in hospital earlier in the year and I reckon my 2 week stay with procedures cost the NHS around £35000, more than I will pay in income tax this year. The "profit" very quickly runs out.
Click to expand...

The simplistic break even point that the stats @Hertzblue used is really high. That's not a criticism of him at all, as that's the only stat that's ever used.

The simple argument to show it's nonsense, is this:

Someone who never works a day in their lives, but who inherits a large stock portfolio, can be a net contributor, while the person who works full time till they retire, on above average wages, can be a net cost.

It's obviously a lot more complex, and plenty of wealthy people do contribute huge amounts to society, often building up businesses, employing people etc. But they can't do that without all these "net cost" people's work. Recording that is much more complicated, but when the numbers suggests the majority of us are a drain on society, that's always going to be wrong.
 
hilts said:
We are allowed to let in anyone we want as you well.know, we don't need the EU for that.

Some are even in favour of no restrictions at all, well not some just you:-)
Click to expand...

Yes. For example we chose non-European migration over European migration and to isolate ourselves from European agreements on refugees. These were conscious democratic choices made by the people and our elected representatives.

Such has been the success of our choices we are have arrived at the ‘how about we give the State the right to torture people and round people up and deport them’ stage of the conversation.

I think we can all agree our choices in recent years have been less than optimal.
 
Vic said:
A lot of that was in the opening summary! Thanks for summarising the rest.

Plus the quote from a previous study that says a lot depends on the assumptions made.

Meanwhile a "think tank" opposed to immigration came up with this:

"Nearly between 55 and 60% of working migrants earn less than the OBR’s definition of a “low wage” (depending on which iteration of “25th percentile” one chooses to assess).

"Over 50% of those earning less £26,200 come from just three countries: India, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. A further 36% come from Ghana, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nepal, and South Africa."

That sounds to me like a list of countries providing the UK with a lot of NHS and care home staff. If they're a net cost to the UK the stats really are nonsense.
Click to expand...

You’re welcome. I like to do my bit for the Bluemoon community :)

Personally, I think the report could have been boiled down to three bullet points.

- Economic migration. Fiscally good.

- Non Economic migration. Fiscally bad.

- Economic migration is better if the migrants are culturally similar to native population. I assume they mean white and Protestant. Or basically as Dutch as possible.

I did note that the report says 22% of the Dutch population has a migrant background. This is now 25% and will be 36% by 2050. I guess ‘mirroring’ the native population is a moving target.
 
bluenova said:
I'm not a huge fan, but it makes sense that she'd have more insight than most about how the Greens would campaign against Labour.
Click to expand...


Thinking about it, you're right. She should advise all the Labour MPs who might be in a battle with the Green Party.
 
BobKowalski said:
Yes. For example we chose non-European migration over European migration and to isolate ourselves from European agreements on refugees. These were conscious democratic choices made by the people and our elected representatives.

Such has been the success of our choices we are have arrived at the ‘how about we give the State the right to torture people and round people up and deport them’ stage of the conversation.

I think we can all agree our choices in recent years have been less than optimal.
Click to expand...

Whose we? We didn't choose no European immigration nor have we arrived at the how about a bit of torture.

Stop lying.
 
hilts said:
Whose we? We didn't choose no European immigration nor have we arrived at the how about a bit of torture.

Stop lying.
Click to expand...
I remind you that @Oldham Exile was explicit that the EU was racist because it was mostly white EU citizens who had freedom of movement. Has not EU immigration come down and non-EU immigration gone up?

And the idea that Farage would deport people to torturing regimes? Where's the lie?

www.lbc.co.uk

In Farage's Britain, I would be sent back to my torturers | LBC

Twenty years ago, I had to leave my home country in central Africa to escape torture.
www.lbc.co.uk www.lbc.co.uk
 
hilts said:
Whose we? We didn't choose no European immigration nor have we arrived at the how about a bit of torture.

Stop lying.
Click to expand...

We, the people and the people we elect to represent us. You can airbrush this out of existence as if it never happened, but it doesn’t change reality.

And talking of reality, where are these studies claiming the demographic crisis of falling birth rates and longevity is not in fact a crisis?

It’s a subject that interests me so I am happy to hear counter arguments.

Oh, and whenever you hear an argument you do not like, try not to continually accuse them of lying without backing up that claim.
 
Vic said:
I remind you that @Oldham Exile was explicit that the EU was racist because it was mostly white EU citizens who had freedom of movement. Has not EU immigration come down and non-EU immigration gone up?

And the idea that Farage would deport people to torturing regimes? Where's the lie?

www.lbc.co.uk

In Farage's Britain, I would be sent back to my torturers | LBC

Twenty years ago, I had to leave my home country in central Africa to escape torture.
www.lbc.co.uk www.lbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Last time I looked a bluemoon poster wasn't the PM and neither was Farage. We have a Labour govt and a remainer PM and cabinet. Who does or doesn't get in is up to them.
 
hilts said:
Last time I looked a bluemoon poster wasn't the PM and neither was Farage. We have a Labour govt and a remainer PM and cabinet. Who does or doesn't get in is up to them.
Click to expand...

A Govt does not operate in a vacuum. If the country elects via a referendum to go in a different direction which is at odds with the Govt’s industrial and foreign policy then it is obliged to follow that new direction and change policy. Which the Govt duly did. This new direction directly impacted the profile of immigration flow into this country. The legal basis of European immigration into this country changed and depressed their numbers which were compensated by non-European immigration. The change in legal basis also changed the fluidity of immigration into the UK making it less transitory.

The Govt is not some outside alien body imposed on us. We elect it, we in large part shape its direction and in a direct public vote via a referendum we can instruct it to change course.
 
BobKowalski said:
A Govt does not operate in a vacuum. If the country elects via a referendum to go in a different direction which is at odds with the Govt’s industrial and foreign policy then it is obliged to follow that new direction and change policy. Which the Govt duly did. This new direction directly impacted the profile of immigration flow into this country. The legal basis of European immigration into this country changed and depressed their numbers which were compensated by non-European immigration. The change in legal basis also changed the fluidity of immigration into the UK making it less transitory.

The Govt is not some outside alien body imposed on us. We elect it, we in large part shape its direction and in a direct public vote via a referendum we can instruct it to change course.
Click to expand...

So we can quite easily accept a EU national an African or an Asian immigrant based on the rules set out by the govt. Thank you for confirming you were wrong and we haven't chosen to not accept European immigrants.

Shame it took so much desperate waffling by yourself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top