Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.
EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
The real problem is nearly two thirds of a million people turn 65 every year and every year the aged population goes up by 100-200k . That can only be paid for by economic growth which in the western world for most of the last few decades in the main only occurs with population growth. If the birth rate is also in decline in indigenous populations that only exacerbates the issue .Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.
The real problem is nearly two thirds of a million people turn 65 every year and every year the aged population goes up by 100-200k . That can only be paid for by economic growth which in the western world for most of the last few decades in the main only occurs with population growth. If the birth rate is also in decline in indigenous populations that only exacerbates the issue .
That is a huge problem. But shifting it to be tomorrow's problem by importing millions of working age people that will in turn grow old isn't the answer IMO.
I personally think we should make it easier, or give incentives, for working couples to have children.
roaminblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,991
Go back to my earlier post regarding a city the size of Leicester needing to be created every year to cope with the net migration. They need 150k houses, 3 hospitals, 100 schools, etc. and I don't think that the immigrants will generate the money needed to fund that (and the people to work in them) in their lifetime. There is only so far that you can extend existing services.
I can't find this post, do you have a link to the research.
All the evidence so far points towards immigration being younger, fitter and less inclined to use health services etc. It makes sense.
Empirically, they also tend to go back to host countries.
Now your argument isn't baseless, and your right about it shifting the burden of the pension. But what if these immigrants come here, work, pay their tax and leave? That allows for a financing source that is fungible, no?
This is what the government's want and I'll wager, that even if we exit after two years immigration will be very similar to what it is now.
We have to get used to it, it's a source of growth, a source of funds and a source of labour. The best thing we can do is embrace it and exploit the benefits.
You can't account for people having children. You xan account for funding.
I can't find this post, do you have a link to the research.
All the evidence so far points towards immigration being younger, fitter and less inclined to use health services etc. It makes sense.
Empirically, they also tend to go back to host countries.
Now your argument isn't baseless, and your right about it shifting the burden of the pension. But what if these immigrants come here, work, pay their tax and leave? That allows for a financing source that is fungible, no?
This is what the government's want and I'll wager, that even if we exit after two years immigration will be very similar to what it is now.
We have to get used to it, it's a source of growth, a source of funds and a source of labour. The best thing we can do is embrace it and exploit the benefits.
You can't account for people having children. You xan account for funding.
Page 5. It's not research as such - simply saying that to accommodate the 350k people coming in, we'd need to create a city the size of and with the services of Leicester.
Younger also means more likely to have kids and the birth rate among immigrants is much higher than that among the native population.
Do they tend to go back? I'd have thought young people moving here and starting/bringing families would be likely to stay put. Possibly to also bring elderly relatives over to join them. I simply don't believe that the majority (or enough) immigrants will return back home to shift the pension issue off the UK.
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
This perceived solution would have some validity if the people being imported were qualified engineers, architects, IT professionalsThe real problem is nearly two thirds of a million people turn 65 every year and every year the aged population goes up by 100-200k . That can only be paid for by economic growth which in the western world for most of the last few decades in the main only occurs with population growth. If the birth rate is also in decline in indigenous populations that only exacerbates the issue .
and various others capable of earning around £30-£40 thousand per annum. The vast majority are not, and immediately qualify for
tax credits and child benefits, as any earnings are based on the minimum wage, so we are subsidising more people from a diminishing tax take.
Supporters of untrammelled immigration always ignore this.
roaminblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,991
Page 5. It's not research as such - simply saying that to accommodate the 350k people coming in, we'd need to create a city the size of and with the services of Leicester.
Younger also means more likely to have kids and the birth rate among immigrants is much higher than that among the native population.
Do they tend to go back? I'd have thought young people moving here and starting/bringing families would be likely to stay put. Possibly to also bring elderly relatives over to join them. I simply don't believe that the majority (or enough) immigrants will return back home to shift the pension issue off the UK.
I'll look at it later. The thing is, it's a very easy topic on which to hang a political hat, and that both sides of the argument are able to find articles/research to strengthen their argument and lots of real research is often over looked in favour of articles etc which are always biased :-)
So, I can't say I definitively know, but public services are synergetic. A plus one increase in population doesn't require a plus one increase in doctors/roads etc. If I had to guess, I'd say the author was likely just taking the population of Leicester (approx the same amount c.350k and using that as a clumsy example). 350k wouldn't need the infrastructure of Leicester to accommodate as they are spread around the country.
Secondly. I believe that is he trend yes. I cant look at it right now as am supposed to be working :-) but I believe the trend is to make enough money to return to their home countries, particularly European immigrants. I work with many and not one plans to stay to retirement (I know that's not robust research, though).
I'll look at it later. The thing is, it's a very easy topic on which to hang a political hat, and that both sides of the argument are able to find articles/research to strengthen their argument and lots of real research is often over looked in favour of articles etc which are always biased :-)
So, I can't say I definitively know, but public services are synergetic. A plus one increase in population doesn't require a plus one increase in doctors/roads etc. If I had to guess, I'd say the author was likely just taking the population of Leicester (approx the same amount c.350k and using that as a clumsy example). 350k wouldn't need the infrastructure of Leicester to accommodate as they are spread around the country.
Secondly. I believe that is he trend yes. I cant look at it right now as am supposed to be working :-) but I believe the trend is to make enough money to return to their home countries, particularly European immigrants. I work with many and not one plans to stay to retirement (I know that's not robust research, though).
You would need to add that infrastructure if the current infrastructure is at breaking point though. We're a country with full schools and increasing class size. It's incredibly difficult to get a convenient doctors appointment and nigh on impossible to find an NHS dentist. Trains on the major routes are full and there's a housing crisis that's caused huge private rent costs and incredible house prices. You can't say adding a few people here and there won't hurt because it's hurting at the moment and adding more people will exacerbate the issue.
I'd like to see evidence for it. I'd imagine that many plan to return home when they come over but several will meet someone or have kids or lose family and those initial plans will change.
It would be out for me, however that would only be the beginning. Once we are free from external interference, this country needs a radical rethink on identity, education of those still here and a plan for self sufficiency in both industry and agriculture.
Just voting out for the sake of it without a vision would be pointless. If we don't have that long term plan (hate to say this but) to make Britain great again then we might as well stay and continue to have our futures planned, arses wiped and pockets picked by the inbred mongrels of Brussels.
Just voting out for the sake of it without a vision would be pointless. If we don't have that long term plan (hate to say this but) to make Britain great again then we might as well stay and continue to have our futures planned, arses wiped and pockets picked by the inbred mongrels of Brussels.
M
M
mat
Guest
It would be out for me, however that would only be the beginning. Once we are free from external interference, this country needs a radical rethink on identity, education of those still here and a plan for self sufficiency in both industry and agriculture.
Just voting out for the sake of it without a vision would be pointless. If we don't have that long term plan (hate to say this but) to make Britain great again then we might as well stay and continue to have our futures planned, arses wiped and pockets picked by the inbred mongrels of Brussels.
Hello Mr Farage
*Waves*