UKIP

[Rascal]

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration.

who says? UKIP? Tories? Labour? If so, they're lying to you.

Let me offer a bit of perspective here. Future, unfunded, government liabilities are currently projected to be £5 trillion. The unfunded is key. This comes directly from current workers to pay for retiring workers. The liabilities for state pension, discounted back, stands at 263% of british gdp.

Now bear in mind, this calculation is based upon a discount rate of 3%, some economists believe a true discount rate is closer to 1%. Want to know what that makes the liabilities? A huge one. MAkes them grow exponentially.

Now Income in 2013 was circa the 612bn mark. You have the interest rate, why not try and see what figure for projected in come you get. Admitedly this is based upon today's income, and as the workforce expands and tax credit increases, you may well get a higher figure. So weight it upwards.

This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

As above, the tax credits still out current immigration levels, so tax will certainly out strip UKIPs wanted immigration levels.

Now, whether or not you think that immigration is the key to increasing the income is a different conversastion. YOu may well decide that you want to increase income tax for the existing a great deal (of course that still doesn't cope with the dangerous imblanace between the growing aging population and our working level employees).

As for the second part, its very nice of UKIP to support the minority application. That is if its anything other than a pleasant soundbite for the overal reduction in immigration, which, lets face it, it is
If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

That may be, but UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nouse of an aubergine. I work with exellent economists who are a lot more competent (I'd wager) than most political economists. They are significantly worried about the prospect of both a) government liabilities and b) exiting the EU.

Now that isn't to say other opinions are welcome, but on our weekly round up calls the concern is pronounced. And I know who I would trust, because their vested interests do not lie along side those of political parties; whose incentive structures are about appeasing a politically inactive public through popular opinion and saying the right thing.

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

 

[roaminblue]

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

hahaha, I wouldn't mate! I'm just a guy passing on what I've learned (after a few pints on a sunday afternoon). Opinion is key, of course, and the lens through which we view the world

I'm not aware of any studies on that subject, though it would be an interesting topic to cover. That said, I'm really badly placed to have a view on this. My university was predominantly international at master's level. It certainly felt as though the fees weren't putting them off, at least.

In terms of the immigration issue, I think less foreign students are able to find work here; however studying at a well known institution definitely makes them more competitive. A german student from my university may not be able to find occupation here, but they will be tripping over interview offers from germany. So its swings and round abouts.

I would say that I think we are losing more of the talent back to their own countries, however. Where we used to retain them, I think they are going back a little more frequently now.

 

[Rascal]

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

hahaha, I wouldn't mate! I'm just a guy passing on what I've learned (after a few pints on a sunday afternoon). Opinion is key, of course, and the lens through which we view the world

I'm not aware of any studies on that subject, though it would be an interesting topic to cover. That said, I'm really badly placed to have a view on this. My university was predominantly international at master's level. It certainly felt as though the fees weren't putting them off, at least.

In terms of the immigration issue, I think less foreign students are able to find work here; however studying at a well known institution definitely makes them more competitive. A german student from my university may not be able to find occupation here, but they will be tripping over interview offers from germany. So its swings and round abouts.

I would say that I think we are losing more of the talent back to their own countries, however. Where we used to retain them, I think they are going back a little more frequently now.

I was thinking in terms of Economic impact on our institutions. Foreign students pay top dollar to study so must help fund our education system for the benefit of all. Would a an arbitary limit on immigration affect our University funding?

 

[adrian99]

We don't need immigration at the levels we see today and certainly not uncontrolled unskilled immigration.

who says? UKIP? Tories? Labour? If so, they're lying to you.

Let me offer a bit of perspective here. Future, unfunded, government liabilities are currently projected to be £5 trillion. The unfunded is key. This comes directly from current workers to pay for retiring workers. The liabilities for state pension, discounted back, stands at 263% of british gdp.

Now bear in mind, this calculation is based upon a discount rate of 3%, some economists believe a true discount rate is closer to 1%. Want to know what that makes the liabilities? A huge one. MAkes them grow exponentially.

Now Income in 2013 was circa the 612bn mark. You have the interest rate, why not try and see what figure for projected in come you get. Admitedly this is based upon today's income, and as the workforce expands and tax credit increases, you may well get a higher figure. So weight it upwards.

This is why UKIP would bring in a points based immigration system similar to the Australian model that allows the best and the brightest to come here, those that are needed and can contribute the most to society and the exchequer. This system would also make all applicants equal no matter where they apply from in the world, as opposed to the current system that allows predominately white Europeans free entry into the UK but has a different set of rules for the rest of the world the majority of whom are not white.

As above, the tax credits still out current immigration levels, so tax will certainly out strip UKIPs wanted immigration levels.

Now, whether or not you think that immigration is the key to increasing the income is a different conversastion. YOu may well decide that you want to increase income tax for the existing a great deal (of course that still doesn't cope with the dangerous imblanace between the growing aging population and our working level employees).

As for the second part, its very nice of UKIP to support the minority application. That is if its anything other than a pleasant soundbite for the overal reduction in immigration, which, lets face it, it is
If we allow the current immigration waves to continue what do we do when every square metre of the country is covered by houses built to accommodate these people and their offspring.

UKIP are not saying that we don't need immigrants, what we are saying is that we need those that have the skills Britain needs, those that can contribute to the Exchequer and that the numbers must be controlled by laws created and voted for in our own parliament not created for us by unelected commissioners in in Brussels.

That may be, but UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nouse of an aubergine. I work with exellent economists who are a lot more competent (I'd wager) than most political economists. They are significantly worried about the prospect of both a) government liabilities and b) exiting the EU.

Now that isn't to say other opinions are welcome, but on our weekly round up calls the concern is pronounced. And I know who I would trust, because their vested interests do not lie along side those of political parties; whose incentive structures are about appeasing a politically inactive public through popular opinion and saying the right thing.

RIB mate i trust you on these matters more than any politician. And even though i have studied Economics albeit many years ago you lose me at times :))


Has any study been done on the loss of foreign students to the UK education market?

"UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nous of an aubergine".

There you go, arrogance, you and people of your ilk know better than the rest of us. Of course I am aware of the unfunded pension deficit but we can't keep kicking the can down the road until we are so full there is literally no room to swing a cat, the country is only so big, anyone entering must be needed and skilled. Nigel said on the Andrew Marr show this morning that some things are more important than a few pips on GDP and this is one of them, I get it, we are going to be poorer in the future, the days of continued greater wealth are over and we are going to have to work later into old age, many difficult decisions will have to be made.

As for economists, did you all see the financial crash coming? If you did you kept very quite about it. There are many economists with many different views but politics is more important than the opinions of one group of economists or those of self serving big businesses for that matter.

£5bn the cost tax credits to European migrants, £6-9 billion the cost of educating 1m children in our schools, the children of immigrants, £17.6bn the cost of free NHS treatment for the 8m immigrants living here. £10bn the cost of EU membership and £11bn the foreign aid budget. There are many things we can do to reduce spending in order to fund the state pension that today costs £80bn.

It is interesting that we are debating pensions when the conservatives are kicking the under 21's again, taking away their benefits. The under 21's who were not responsible for electing Labour who took NHS spending from £34bn to £104bn increasing pay and as a result public sector pension costs. The under 21's who were not responsible for the financial crash, the under 21's who can look forward to a future where for the first time in many generations they will be poorer than their parents. I would rather look for tangible savings that affect those from overseas not the young who bear the least responsibility for the difficulties our country is presented with today.

I am confident Steven Woolfe who presented UKIP's immigration policy is bright enough to see the issues we all face, we have more than a few bright people within the ranks of UKIP.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I always thought they were the sleepy party

 

[hackneyslim]

I always thought they were the sleepy party

"... our people ... we ... us ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Alternatively, they might be called a bunch of deceitful, hate-filled pseudo-fascists.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

The only good thing I can see about UKIP , is that they are going to split the Tory vote , much as they are currently splitting the Tory party itself.

 

[Ducado]

The only good thing I can see about UKIP , is that they are going to split the Tory vote , much as they are currently splitting the Tory party itself.

I think they will also split the Labour vote

 

[roaminblue]

I was thinking in terms of Economic impact on our institutions. Foreign students pay top dollar to study so must help fund our education system for the benefit of all. Would a an arbitary limit on immigration affect our University funding?

Ah right, nothing that I am aware of unfortunately.

I could answer, but I'd be guessing i'm afraid

 

[roaminblue]

"UKIP, like most political parties have the economic nous of an aubergine".

There you go, arrogance, you and people of your ilk know better than the rest of us. Of course I am aware of the unfunded pension deficit but we can't keep kicking the can down the road until we are so full there is literally no room to swing a cat, the country is only so big, anyone entering must be needed and skilled. Nigel said on the Andrew Marr show this morning that some things are more important than a few pips on GDP and this is one of them, I get it, we are going to be poorer in the future, the days of continued greater wealth are over and we are going to have to work later into old age, many difficult decisions will have to be made.

hahaha, ok fair enough. I wasn't talking about you. I was referring more to the economists that use selective data to fit a political ideological viewpoint, or a campaign. But whatever, take it however you want.

As for me and my ilk. Not sure what that means. I'm not an economist, I work with a number of economists, and my view is informed by them, and you know what. Yes. they do know more than the rest of us. Thats why its their job. They are paid to know more than the rest of us.

Second part. If you saw what I read, I never said I was particularly pro whole sale immigration, I gave a list of possible eventualities that were glossed over by you completely. As for Nigel's comments. Read again the figures. Please. This is more than a few pips on GDP. Just do a quick calculation and have a look at the projected deficit between income and liabilities.

This isn't a case of us being poorer, this is a case of us (if immigration is stopped and the population remains as healthy as it is) having to pay more out in public pensions than we have as income.

As I said previously, though i get the impression it will be ignored, there are a number of solutions (in my mind). One is immigration, one is a tiny state with pensions provided by the private sector, and one is increasing birth rates, one is greater international political union.

Any other suggestions I'm welcome to listen. I know which one I think it will be, but I'm always prepared to be proven wrong. Seriously.

You are right, the age of retirement will increase, a lot more than it has already. Not that this is neccessarily a bad thing, it could be better for the economy. Lets hope employers see it this way as well.

As for economists, did you all see the financial crash coming? If you did you kept very quite about it. There are many economists with many different views but politics is more important than the opinions of one group of economists or those of self serving big businesses for that matter.

I'm not an economist, and I wasn't working when the financial crash occured. But to answer your question (about colleagues) a couple of them did yes. Which is why their company came through very unscathed.

For what its worth, if only for informed debate. There has been the suggestion that in terms of crisis counting, we are currently at 2003 again (of course there are a lot of factors that aren't the same back then) but we are not structurally robust enough to make it inconceiveable that we won't find ourselves in another crash within the next 15 years.

£5bn the cost tax credits to European migrants, £6-9 billion the cost of educating 1m children in our schools, the children of immigrants, £17.6bn the cost of free NHS treatment for the 8m immigrants living here. £10bn the cost of EU membership and £11bn the foreign aid budget. There are many things we can do to reduce spending in order to fund the state pension that today costs £80bn.

Thats all well and good. All the recent studies show migrants have a net positive impact, again, ONS is your friend. Secondly, quote that £80bn figure again, and look at the projection. Tell me this deficit can be solved by simply increasing the working age?