You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
..but I already like him 🙂
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Statistics init, can change them to show what you want.
If you did your pie with how much resource that 330k people take out of the country or benefits/NHS etc, then your wedge would be bigger.
So although it shows one view point, you easily show an alternate view point with statistics
If you did your pie with how much resource that 330k people take out of the country or benefits/NHS etc, then your wedge would be bigger.
Or we could just make them up....
AFAIK we are not importing pensioners
Which paper is that?
Or possibly smaller if some of them are earners. Stats rocksIf you did your pie with how much resource that 330k people take out of the country or benefits/NHS etc, then your wedge would be bigger.
Imagine my dissapointment when I realised this thread wasn't about the great NFL linebacker..
"If you did your pie with how much resource that 330k people take out of the country or benefits/NHS etc, then your wedge would be bigger."
Nope smaller.
That's migrants per year, compared to total population. So imagine that graph after twenty years of migration, you might not be quite so relaxed about it.
Until recently we had parity with near zero net migration. As states elsewhere the UK has reasonably low unemployment and a large skills shortage in many areas such as health. So you you want immigration or nurses?
That's migrants per year, compared to total population. So imagine that graph after twenty years of migration, you might not be quite so relaxed about it.
I can assure you I would be just as relaxed about it, thanks.
f you did your pie with how much resource that 330k people take out of the country or benefits/NHS etc, then your wedge would be bigger.
Your point is totally false and research shows that immigrants are net contributors to the economy
Feel free to use fact check or any number of other unbiased sources to get this indisputable point.
Imagine my dissapointment when I realised this thread wasn't about the great NFL linebacker..
#56
That's migrants per year, compared to total population. So imagine that graph after twenty years of migration, you might not be quite so relaxed about it.
Let's imagine that.
"Imagine that we left the EU and banned EU immigration completely. Nobody else allowed – no footballers, no entertainers, no chefs, no businessmen, no nurses, no cleaners, nobody. And we kept that door shut for ten years. And for comparison let’s say that we stayed in the EU and immigration continues at this year’s record level (the highest ever) for the next ten years. How would that impact our population and our public services?
In terms of population, we’d end up with 1.85m fewer people living in our country after the 10 years. That sounds like a lot of people, which it is. But we’re a big country – 64.6m in total at the moment (2). So even under these very extreme assumptions the difference is only 2.8%. Less than 1 in 35.
Would you notice the difference if there were 34 instead of 35 people in your doctors’ waiting room? If there were 34 instead of 35 cars ahead of you in the traffic jam? Would your child’s education suffer in a class of 35 instead of 34? I doubt it.
And don’t forget that we’re making crazily unrealistic assumptions about how much we could reduce immigration if we left the EU. Because even the most ardent Leave campaigners don’t say that we should stop immigration altogether. They usually talk of using a points system to reach the government’s net target of 100,000 per year. So the difference in population after 10 years wouldn’t be anything like as much as 1 in 35.
Let’s say we could hit the net target of 100,000 – half from the EU and half from non-EU countries for the sake of argument. In that case, the difference in population after 10 years would be 1.35m or 1 in 49.
And don’t forget that we’re also making another very aggressive assumption – that migration will continue at the same level as last year, our highest ever. It would be more realistic to take the average of the last five years migration (3). If we do that, then the difference in our population after ten years would be only 790,000 or 1 in 82.
1 in 82.
I can’t tell the difference between a crowd of 81 and 82 people (even when they were my own wedding guests!). Can you?"
Frankly, immigration would not be one of the factors that would make me vote to leave.
Shame the out campaign have not come up with any other reasons.
That's migrants per year, compared to total population. So imagine that graph after twenty years of migration, you might not be quite so relaxed about it.
Population growth has been between 0.3 & 0.8% since the mid-nineties.
I like his comment at the bottom right 🙂
[b]Thank you! [/b]That was the point of this post 🙂
If you liked that guy, you should probably listen to what this guy says :
and then read his follow up here :
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-dishonesty-video-goes-viral/
Sorry if that's been posted already elsewhere, but I do find it an insightful piece.
I like it 🙂
I am often amazed at the number of people who think that every person who settles in the UK arrives in the back of a lorry and never works a day in their lives as the benefits are too good.
In my experience, quite a few with this opinion hold it from the comfort of their council house having not worked much of their lives.
Obviously a sibling of Swift. 😉
I am often amazed at the number of people who think that every person who settles in the UK arrives in the back of a lorry and never works a day in their lives as the benefits are too good
but in XX country you can live like a king on £20/ week so why wouldn't they come to the uk for £ 72 job seekers a week?!
[b]Imagine my dissapointment when I realised this thread wasn't about the great NFL linebacker..[/b]
This. Great player, great character
[b]Imagine my dissapointment when I realised this thread wasn't about the great NFL linebacker..[/b]
This. Great player, great character
Population growth has been between 0.3 & 0.8% since the mid-nineties.
On a long enough timescale, anything other than 0% is unsustainable, given that we live on a finite planet, etc etc.
We can grow to the point the planet cannot feed us all so at some point it needs to become 0 % but not until the maximum we can manage has been reached,
"1 in 35"
Putting an additional 1/35 of our country under concrete to build houses and infrastructure strikes me as quite horrific. (They can't live in tents.)
Not that it matters since immigration will continue at the same pace on or out of Europe IMHO, because its a quick way to achieve economic growth.
"We can grow to the point the planet cannot feed us all so at some point it needs to become 0 % but not until the maximum we can manage has been reached,"
Google the phosphates crisis.
Imagine my dissapointment when I realised this thread wasn't about the great NFL linebacker..
+2 legend!
Yesterday I drove from Rutland to Leicester and on average.....
.
Do you not get it that immigrants are net contributors to our society?
Seeing as the average brit probably has to work and pay taxes for a good few years to pay off being born, free education, health care and all the rest. Immigrants start from a zero balance.
Google the phosphates crisis.
I don't need to* but that does not negate the point I made it simply means the number today is not sustainable. At some point growth is sustainable and then it needs to drop to zero we can still grow or else we would be stuck with just adam and eve as the entire human population. Not sure what would happen when they had kids as we have a natural increase then. .
* fair point though. I suppose we could say "natural disaster" initiates a massive cull but that will be man made.
Seeing as the average brit probably has to work and pay taxes for a good few years to pay off being born, free education, health care and all the rest. Immigrants start from a zero balance.
this point makes zero sense
Those who come here either contribute an amount to the coffers or they are a deficit to the coffers
What UK nationals do either positively or negatively has ZERO impact on whether immigrants are net contributors.
All the stats show they are net contributors
yes it includes NHS costs and education and benefits etc in the calculation
Can we perhaps accept EU migrants, but also give a grant to help people migrate OUT of the UK as well?
Then all these moaners can go live somewhere else, and given most of them are old it'll ease the pressure on the NHS.
Until recently we had parity with near zero net migration. As states elsewhere the UK has reasonably low unemployment and a large skills shortage in many areas such as health. So you you want immigration or nurses?
I thought the point of the leave argument is that as Australia does, you get the nurses and not the unskilled labourers
no one on leave has stated zero immigration it's all about the points system and getting the talent rather than any person who wants to move here
the nurse might be happier that house prices/ rents fall if the pressure on housing is reduced
the point is mute anyway, the later day King Vortigern has long done his work and it's now just a matter of time before the order of things changes, a vote either way will not change this
Slightly picky, but isn't the 330k figure NET migration?
All the stats show they are net contributors
yes it includes NHS costs and education and benefits etc in the calculation
mainly because the stats don't cover increasing infrastructure to manage the numbers, as we aren't building more hospitals, schools, roads, rail etc instead just sweating existing assets it creates the illusion of the marginal costs being more than covered
mainly because the stats don't cover increasing infrastructure to manage the numbers
This is hardly the fault of the immigrants though.
no one on leave has stated zero immigration it's all about the points system and getting the talent rather than any person who wants to move here
Do people really just move across Europe to claim benefits? Really? I think people move for jobs.. so when there aren't vacancies most of the people would stop coming, surely?
What UK nationals do either positively or negatively has ZERO impact on whether immigrants are net contributors.
100% but for those on their immigrants cost crusade some simple reminders about what most people have taken from the pot before even starting to pay in is useful.
[quote=molgrips ]Do people really just move across Europe to claim benefits? Really? I think people move for jobs.. so when there aren't vacancies most of the people would stop coming, surely?Schrodingers immigrant - the one that simultaneously lives off benefits AND steals your job.
Do people really just move across Europe to claim benefits? Really? I think people move for jobs.. so when there aren't vacancies most of the people would stop coming, surely?
no they'll come for the living wage which is several times higher than in some countries
the one that simultaneously lives off [b]in work[/b] benefits AND steals your job
FIFY
no they'll come for the living wage which is several times higher than in some countries
And do they then pay tax?
Does their activity generate GDP and hence tax revenue?
It'd be great if someone could work out the net effect on the economy of all these EU migrants, wouldn't it?
the one that simultaneously lives off in work benefits AND steals your jobFIFY
Maybe our government should stop subsidizing employers, then.
It'd be great if someone could work out the net effect on the economy of all these EU migrants, wouldn't it?
Maybe we could get some Poles in to do it
And do they then pay tax?
I believe the living wage would essentially attract low/ no tax due to the increases in the tax bands, anyone would game the system to get the ideal position re wages and in work benefits
GDP increases don't correlate to tax revenue increasesDoes their activity generate GDP and hence tax revenue?
It'd be great if someone could work out the net effect on the economy of all these EU migrants, wouldn't it?
yes, but they would need to assess where marginal costs no longer apply as infrastructure is required. I don't believe this has been done as it would feed the "numbers" arguments
Maybe our government should stop subsidizing employers, then.
I agree, but the issue is that a massive pull factor is created, do you want to stack shelves for 3x less money in your own country?
yes, but they would need to assess where marginal costs no longer apply as infrastructure is required. I don't believe this has been done as it would feed the "numbers" arguments
then factor in the impact of not having them in the country.
Then work out how much infrastructure we need to build for the greater number of points based immigrants from non EU countries, and those for the aging population.
Ot do you just want the sums to give you the answer you want?
But how many people would you need to employ to build the extra infrastructure...?
GDP increases don't correlate to tax revenue increases
Wait, what? Never heard that before? Do you mean they aren't proportional, or that there's no relationship?
mainly because the stats don't cover increasing infrastructure to manage the numbers, as we aren't building more hospitals, schools, roads, rail etc instead just sweating existing assets it creates the illusion of the marginal costs being more than covered
FACE PALM
You can keep typing things that show you don't understand what the word NET means, and clutch at whatever straws you wish whilst doing this, but it really serves to only highlight your lack of insight and makes me question why you are so anti immigration when the FACTS refute this utterance
Between 2001 and 2011 recent EEA immigrants contributed 34 per cent more than they took out, a net contribution of £22bn.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-immigrants-pay/16332
One cannot defeat Farage like views with the facts
Uk nationals contributed 93% FWIW - ie net beneficaries
GDP increases don't correlate to tax revenue increases
HAHAHAHAHA Best of luck working out why that is wrong and for two different reasons
but they would need to assess where marginal costs no longer apply as infrastructure is required
Red herring argument is red
the figures include costs for education and health care which includes the "infrastructure" costs 🙄
anyone would game the system to get the ideal position re wages and in work benefits
the numbers would be (in the grand scheme of things) teeny.
Slightly picky, but isn't the 330k figure NET migration?
Yes - and it is net [b]ALL[/b] migration.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199 ]Net EU migration is around 184,000[/url] (about 0.287% of our population)
Current figures put net non-EU migration at 188,000.
We let more people in through those borders that we do have control of than those that we (supposedly) don't.