FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is immigration such a bad thing?
Is immigration such a bad thing?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hold on to your hats "Shiiittt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hold on to your hats
Shiiittt "There's a storm brewing  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it?" But does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it?" If everything was half the cost... ok | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it?" How is that even possible? Would the salary of people in Norway half if you went and worked there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? If everything was half the cost... ok " Shit outta luck there then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? If everything was half the cost... ok Shit outta luck there then. " You haven't been to Lidl  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? If everything was half the cost... ok Shit outta luck there then. " "Confucius say, 'He who stirs shit may end up licking spoon'." *intones head gravely* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? How is that even possible? Would the salary of people in Norway half if you went and worked there? " No. Because I'd only work for a comparable salary. Not half. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to see more emigrants - beginning with those Brits who do nothing but sit on their arse and make out immigrants have taken all the jobs."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years"
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc"Most of those you mention were violent invaders who slaughtered the indigenous population. At least then, the locals could chuck the spears back without being arrested for hate-crimes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc
Most of those you mention were violent invaders who slaughtered the indigenous population. "I'm sure the Daily Mail says the same about them Muslim refugees from Syria... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc
Most of those you mention were violent invaders who slaughtered the indigenous population. At least then, the locals could chuck the spears back without being arrested for hate-crimes "Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I lost the thread, why is immigration politics ? I must have missed a school lesson somewhere. Maybe this should be the sociology thread. " It got forcefully migrated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I lost the thread, why is immigration politics ? I must have missed a school lesson somewhere. Maybe this should be the sociology thread. It got forcefully migrated" Without a passport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc
Most of those you mention were violent invaders who slaughtered the indigenous population.
I'm sure the Daily Mail says the same about them Muslim refugees from Syria... "No, you've just said it. Freudian slip? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc
Most of those you mention were violent invaders who slaughtered the indigenous population. At least then, the locals could chuck the spears back without being arrested for hate-crimes
Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities.". Which ones were those? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a fair bit longer than 100 years
But apart from the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, French, Dutch, Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, etc etc, what have immigrants ever done for us?
The problem is never the immigrants, it is the politicians who fail to provide the additional homes, schools, hospitals and other services we need, while relying on the immigrants to hold those services together.
Mr ddc
Most of those you mention were violent invaders who slaughtered the indigenous population. At least then, the locals could chuck the spears back without being arrested for hate-crimes
Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities..
Which ones were those?"I the 1980's Wimpey house builders were known as We Import More Paddys Every Year, and they did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? How is that even possible? Would the salary of people in Norway half if you went and worked there? " Emigrate to the Netherlands. Your wage will double. Of course you need to have skills they need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? How is that even possible? Would the salary of people in Norway half if you went and worked there? Emigrate to the Netherlands. Your wage will double. Of course you need to have skills they need." Like prostitution and rolling spliffs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If immigration ment your salary was halved would you still welcome it? How is that even possible? Would the salary of people in Norway half if you went and worked there? " look at the haulage industry for that one wages suppressed by influx of cheap foreign drivers ask yourself why many Hgv driving jobs are now only advertised to Eastern Europeans ? Because they are happy to do the work currently paying £10+ an hour for min wage for a couple of years live in a dingy digs then move back home with a nice best egg | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration is used as a convenient scapegoat so the general population blame them instead of the real source of all our problems - The Rich. I think people rightly get angry when they can't get a mortgage because all the jobs are short term contracts and there just aren't enough houses. Many of the Eastern European countries are losing their best and brightest.. Why not just have a European wide minimum wage ?" Because it would cause hyperinflation in eastern Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it clearly is.... Rampant immigration here led to Brexit (the people's choice) and over the next five years it's fairly certain that more EU countries will go the same way..... So yes, it clearly is." Well that's a circular logic right there! So if 3% less people had voted Brexit then immigration would be a good thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. " 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have no issue if they contribute Integrate Add something Otherwise It's a drain on society Nhs Housing Economy " There is a higher percentage of people born here that fall into the latter category than people who move here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If it is controlled no. If uncontrolled yes. If it's such a good thing why doesn't Europe allow people in from anywhere in the world? " Because other contries don't cough up the billions to be part of the exclusive EU club | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have no issue if they contribute Integrate Add something Otherwise It's a drain on society Nhs Housing Economy So we already had a problem and we are making it worse? There is a higher percentage of people born here that fall into the latter category than people who move here." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! " 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected." OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! " Yes it is. We spoke about this the other day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc" maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc" lf a population declines and the economy declines with it, what's the biggie? As long as the ratio doesn't slip too much. Japans economy is healthier than ours imo. They still produce great steel and have a large motor and electronics industry. The last 20 years there has been somewhat of a decline but that happens. You simply can't get richer year on year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral" Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc lf a population declines and the economy declines with it, what's the biggie? As long as the ratio doesn't slip too much. Japans economy is healthier than ours imo." According to the IMF, world Bank and CIA, the average Brit is better off than the average Japanese so I wouldn't concur on the economy. You need to understand that our population hasn't declined except for war or plague, since... ever. All the prices in houses, stocks, bonds - everything has a built in growth factor. Asset prices are measure absolutely, not relatively. If economies could simply adjust as quickly as you suggest then the financial crisis would have just been a bad yeah in 2008, not something that still lingers on today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! " We live in a capitalist society. You have a fixation on tax. lt's private enterprise that creates jobs. Poor working class areas suffer an extreme amount due to mass immigration. You used the very same argument for housing and a declining population. Less people and more houses means lower price as the demand is lower. The same is true for employment and people. More immigrants = more labour = value of labour goes down. And native Brits are forced to take unlivable wages, in a country with a very high cost of living and are called lazy if they refuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! " true. The average wage in Crewe say is probably half what it is in London, so immigrant or not, the number of taxpayers does not mean the cost of services are necessarily covered by those tax payers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc lf a population declines and the economy declines with it, what's the biggie? As long as the ratio doesn't slip too much. Japans economy is healthier than ours imo. According to the IMF, world Bank and CIA, the average Brit is better off than the average Japanese so I wouldn't concur on the economy. You need to understand that our population hasn't declined except for war or plague, since... ever. All the prices in houses, stocks, bonds - everything has a built in growth factor. Asset prices are measure absolutely, not relatively. If economies could simply adjust as quickly as you suggest then the financial crisis would have just been a bad yeah in 2008, not something that still lingers on today. " Well since populations decine slowly, l was obviously talking about a slow decline in both respects. l don't give much credence to GDP per capita. lt is just a number. We need to take into account many other factors like cost of living, general level of unemployment and standard deviation. And l still think our economy is too reliant on too few things compared to theirs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit" . Coz vat, fuel tax, and Ni bring in more than income tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit. Coz vat, fuel tax, and Ni bring in more than income tax?" maybe, so why not bring in another 10 million a year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit. Coz vat, fuel tax, and Ni bring in more than income tax? maybe, so why not bring in another 10 million a year" . They would if they could get away with it?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit. Coz vat, fuel tax, and Ni bring in more than income tax? maybe, so why not bring in another 10 million a year. They would if they could get away with it?." you're probably right, more indirect taxes and more poor people, who cares | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! We live in a capitalist society. You have a fixation on tax. lt's private enterprise that creates jobs. Poor working class areas suffer an extreme amount due to mass immigration. You used the very same argument for housing and a declining population. Less people and more houses means lower price as the demand is lower. The same is true for employment and people. More immigrants = more labour = value of labour goes down. And native Brits are forced to take unlivable wages, in a country with a very high cost of living and are called lazy if they refuse. " That's true, but as I've told you before, low skilled British people need to get some skills! They don't have some inherent right to get paid well to do a low skilled job!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money is made by debt, you want more money, you need more debt!... It's not rocket science, immigration creates debt, that's money, students create debt, that's money, poor people create debt that money.... Is it just me that sees this?" I see it, but it's irrelevant. Money is just a medium of exchange. It has no inherent value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc lf a population declines and the economy declines with it, what's the biggie? As long as the ratio doesn't slip too much. Japans economy is healthier than ours imo. According to the IMF, world Bank and CIA, the average Brit is better off than the average Japanese so I wouldn't concur on the economy. You need to understand that our population hasn't declined except for war or plague, since... ever. All the prices in houses, stocks, bonds - everything has a built in growth factor. Asset prices are measure absolutely, not relatively. If economies could simply adjust as quickly as you suggest then the financial crisis would have just been a bad yeah in 2008, not something that still lingers on today. Well since populations decine slowly, l was obviously talking about a slow decline in both respects. l don't give much credence to GDP per capita. lt is just a number. We need to take into account many other factors like cost of living, general level of unemployment and standard deviation. And l still think our economy is too reliant on too few things compared to theirs. " There are things I like about Japan and things I don't. It's one of the least entrepreneurial developed countries in the world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We run a system obsessed with growth on a finite planet, at this moment in time were producing more shit than can sell, by that I mean were producing more shit than wages can buy!. Solution debt.... Unfortunately we've now run out of debt limits, that is, our debt can't be paid by the wages!. Solution immigration.... Unfortunately this has driven down wages even more, meaning were finding it even harder to pay that debt and running up more in the process!. . There's two solutions in my mind. 1 we actually make an effort to turn the third world into the first world, that's 4 billon more consumers. 2 you reset world debt levels and start again. . I would add there's problems that will come along with both the solutions but there the better option than all the short term sticking plasters were currently trying" 3. We create robots to take over the work of producing what we need. Humans gradually reduce the standard working week as far down as possible. Eventually we all sit around enjoying leisure whilst our slave robots do everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit. Coz vat, fuel tax, and Ni bring in more than income tax? maybe, so why not bring in another 10 million a year. They would if they could get away with it?. you're probably right, more indirect taxes and more poor people, who cares" . They've transferred tax's pretty much throughout the world from direct tax(income tax) to indirect tax (vat)! The middle class(that's pretty much everybody who isn't either loaded or unemployed) have been hammered in tax for the last 40 years... But fear not globalisation will bring down prices making your less money go further!... We've cured that demon inflation, economists are dicks, they've not cured it they've hidden it!. In reality inflation is not prices going up, it's the value of your currency going down, when you expand the currency, you cheapen it, we've expanded it beyond belief in the last ten years, but due to the tax changes years before, that money isn't going places.... It's stuck at the top of the ladder, what we need to do is, have less money, reduce it alot but get it circulating faster, the first step is higher interest rates. They've come up with this idea that if you just increase the money supply endlessly so there's just so much of it about, it will eventually filter down, that's the idea that's driving zero interest rates.... It's nuts, the trouble is there on the treadmill and they've been switching the speed higher and higher and now they can't jump off | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit. Coz vat, fuel tax, and Ni bring in more than income tax? maybe, so why not bring in another 10 million a year. They would if they could get away with it?. you're probably right, more indirect taxes and more poor people, who cares. They've transferred tax's pretty much throughout the world from direct tax(income tax) to indirect tax (vat)! The middle class(that's pretty much everybody who isn't either loaded or unemployed) have been hammered in tax for the last 40 years... But fear not globalisation will bring down prices making your less money go further!... We've cured that demon inflation, economists are dicks, they've not cured it they've hidden it!. In reality inflation is not prices going up, it's the value of your currency going down, when you expand the currency, you cheapen it, we've expanded it beyond belief in the last ten years, but due to the tax changes years before, that money isn't going places.... It's stuck at the top of the ladder, what we need to do is, have less money, reduce it alot but get it circulating faster, the first step is higher interest rates. They've come up with this idea that if you just increase the money supply endlessly so there's just so much of it about, it will eventually filter down, that's the idea that's driving zero interest rates.... It's nuts, the trouble is there on the treadmill and they've been switching the speed higher and higher and now they can't jump off" And again, why aren't you standing for leadership of the green party? That's actually some pretty good analysis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money is made by debt, you want more money, you need more debt!... It's not rocket science, immigration creates debt, that's money, students create debt, that's money, poor people create debt that money.... Is it just me that sees this? I see it, but it's irrelevant. Money is just a medium of exchange. It has no inherent value. " . You know what Eisenstein said was the most powerful force in the world? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money is made by debt, you want more money, you need more debt!... It's not rocket science, immigration creates debt, that's money, students create debt, that's money, poor people create debt that money.... Is it just me that sees this? I see it, but it's irrelevant. Money is just a medium of exchange. It has no inherent value. . You know what Eisenstein said was the most powerful force in the world?" a vagina? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money is made by debt, you want more money, you need more debt!... It's not rocket science, immigration creates debt, that's money, students create debt, that's money, poor people create debt that money.... Is it just me that sees this? I see it, but it's irrelevant. Money is just a medium of exchange. It has no inherent value. . You know what Eisenstein said was the most powerful force in the world? a vagina?" Definitely vagina | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And again, why aren't you standing for leadership of the green party? That's actually some pretty good analysis " . The green party are ideologically driven... Growth = evil.... That's always been the Moto. Trouble is were not going to get out the environment problem were in, the only thing that can now Save us is growth but it has to be good growth, not financialisation bollocks.... We need to be spending big on big ideas, it's why I'm against Hinckley, it's yesterday's thinking when we should be doing tomorrow's thinking today. In fact that should be the UK company motto ... Tomorrow's ideas, done today, at yesterday's prices...... Now watch this drive | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money is made by debt, you want more money, you need more debt!... It's not rocket science, immigration creates debt, that's money, students create debt, that's money, poor people create debt that money.... Is it just me that sees this? I see it, but it's irrelevant. Money is just a medium of exchange. It has no inherent value. . You know what Eisenstein said was the most powerful force in the world? a vagina?" . I like your answer but it was actually ...compound interest | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Money is made by debt, you want more money, you need more debt!... It's not rocket science, immigration creates debt, that's money, students create debt, that's money, poor people create debt that money.... Is it just me that sees this? I see it, but it's irrelevant. Money is just a medium of exchange. It has no inherent value. . You know what Eisenstein said was the most powerful force in the world? a vagina?. I like your answer but it was actually ...compound interest" OK, well that's a stupid answer but let's be fair, he wasn't an economist. By the way, does he have an opinion of how Rushford should fit into the Man United line up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! " 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. " Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit" Is it 43% that seems high. Even on pensions in payment etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Watching Ross Kemp Extreme World about illegal immigrants going via Mexico into USA. It's a major problem there. Here hate crime seems to be on the increase with Polish police now patrolling in Essex to help ease tensions there. In the dim distant past I have a Greek heritage and my family have fully integrated here. Can't we all be more accepting instead of being so intolerant. I thought we were better than that? " you need to look far deeper into the problems which cause the crimes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. " Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1% of people in the UK pay 27% of the income tax and 43% pay no income tax at all so I am curious as to how high low paid immigration is supposed to be a benefit Is it 43% that seems high. Even on pensions in payment etc?" according to tinternet anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities.. Which ones were those?" Shall we begin with Liverpool, London, Bristol, Glasgow?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. " Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so 
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too. "Have you no common sense? No mind of your own at all? Immigrant kids don't contribute a penny but we have to educate them. If their dad is on minimum wage and paying next to nothing in how does that work? What about the cost of healthcare? How much do we collect from all the immigrants that have overrun the NHS? They aren't even working most likely and often claiming benefits. What about those who are too old to work? Or will be soon? You have no clue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration is good, it is what keeps the economy stable, without them, the country would be on its knees." It's good when you have labour shortages not when you have unemployment, overstretched resources and no choice over. Another prerequisite of immigration done properly is selection, not an open door to anyone who turns up. Wake up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too.
Have you no common sense? No mind of your own at all? Immigrant kids don't contribute a penny but we have to educate them. If their dad is on minimum wage and paying next to nothing in how does that work? What about the cost of healthcare? How much do we collect from all the immigrants that have overrun the NHS? They aren't even working most likely and often claiming benefits. What about those who are too old to work? Or will be soon?
You have no clue. "You're just ignorant because you have some completely non-factual, bigoted view that immigrants are all on minimum wage. I can't be arsed to argue with people like you that don't have a single fact or figure to back them up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too.
Have you no common sense? No mind of your own at all? Immigrant kids don't contribute a penny but we have to educate them. If their dad is on minimum wage and paying next to nothing in how does that work? What about the cost of healthcare? How much do we collect from all the immigrants that have overrun the NHS? They aren't even working most likely and often claiming benefits. What about those who are too old to work? Or will be soon?
You have no clue.
You're just ignorant because you have some completely non-factual, bigoted view that immigrants are all on minimum wage. I can't be arsed to argue with people like you that don't have a single fact or figure to back them up. "Lead by example then. Provide us with facts and figures that show ALL of the costs to the country and total revenue from immigrants. Till then we have to go with common sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too.
Have you no common sense? No mind of your own at all? Immigrant kids don't contribute a penny but we have to educate them. If their dad is on minimum wage and paying next to nothing in how does that work? What about the cost of healthcare? How much do we collect from all the immigrants that have overrun the NHS? They aren't even working most likely and often claiming benefits. What about those who are too old to work? Or will be soon?
You have no clue.
You're just ignorant because you have some completely non-factual, bigoted view that immigrants are all on minimum wage. I can't be arsed to argue with people like you that don't have a single fact or figure to back them up.
Lead by example then. Provide us with facts and figures that show ALL of the costs to the country and total revenue from immigrants.
Till then we have to go with common sense."Here are some facts; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study?0p19G=c Do you have any to counter or just you personal opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration is good, it is what keeps the economy stable, without them, the country would be on its knees. It's good when you have labour shortages not when you have unemployment, overstretched resources and no choice over. Another prerequisite of immigration done properly is selection, not an open door to anyone who turns up. Wake up. " What I meant was in general, you wouldnt see a brit take such jobs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities.. Which ones were those? Shall we begin with Liverpool, London, Bristol, Glasgow? ". No I meant which immigrants not which towns have been built or rebuilt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too.
Have you no common sense? No mind of your own at all? Immigrant kids don't contribute a penny but we have to educate them. If their dad is on minimum wage and paying next to nothing in how does that work? What about the cost of healthcare? How much do we collect from all the immigrants that have overrun the NHS? They aren't even working most likely and often claiming benefits. What about those who are too old to work? Or will be soon?
You have no clue.
You're just ignorant because you have some completely non-factual, bigoted view that immigrants are all on minimum wage. I can't be arsed to argue with people like you that don't have a single fact or figure to back them up.
Lead by example then. Provide us with facts and figures that show ALL of the costs to the country and total revenue from immigrants.
Till then we have to go with common sense.
Here are some facts; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study?0p19G=c
Do you have any to counter or just you personal opinion? "Not mine, one of many similar ones in the comments section of that article. "This isn't solid data. The report is based on the UK Labour Force survey of 60,000 households in the UK. Those 60,000 households are 95% private housing. The UK Labour Force survey is unreliable in the first place and is used by the tories to misrepresent how well the economy is doing. The UK Labour Force Survey suggests very few people are in poverty in the UK. You can't be satisfied with a unreliable study based on a unreliable study that is used by the tories to lie about the economy. Is the left so bereft of honesty to do the same as the tories to defend EU immigration into the UK?" Saves me telling you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to see more emigrants - beginning with those Brits who do nothing but sit on their arse and make out immigrants have taken all the jobs." there is this..... the other dirty secret is that a lot of immigrants do the jobs that a lot of the "local populations" think are beneath them.... i don't think immigration is a bad thing.... i think the brexit vote has emboldened a certain group of them that they can be more vocal in there hate and anger....... people for example always talk about the NHS, and how it is being abused by foreigners.... but the truth is in hospital you are more likely to be treated by a foreigner, but that a doctor or a nurse, then you are to be in a hospital ward with one....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities.. Which ones were those? Shall we begin with Liverpool, London, Bristol, Glasgow? .
No I meant which immigrants not which towns have been built or rebuilt"Those are cities that prospered from the slave trade... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to see more emigrants - beginning with those Brits who do nothing but sit on their arse and make out immigrants have taken all the jobs. there is this..... the other dirty secret is that a lot of immigrants do the jobs that a lot of the "local populations" think are beneath them.... i don't think immigration is a bad thing.... i think the brexit vote has emboldened a certain group of them that they can be more vocal in there hate and anger....... people for example always talk about the NHS, and how it is being abused by foreigners.... but the truth is in hospital you are more likely to be treated by a foreigner, but that a doctor or a nurse, then you are to be in a hospital ward with one.... "Very much - the highly skilled, well paid type of immigrant that contributes taxes... ooh but that wouldn't fit in with the debate so well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to see more emigrants - beginning with those Brits who do nothing but sit on their arse and make out immigrants have taken all the jobs. there is this..... the other dirty secret is that a lot of immigrants do the jobs that a lot of the "local populations" think are beneath them.... i don't think immigration is a bad thing.... i think the brexit vote has emboldened a certain group of them that they can be more vocal in there hate and anger....... people for example always talk about the NHS, and how it is being abused by foreigners.... but the truth is in hospital you are more likely to be treated by a foreigner, but that a doctor or a nurse, then you are to be in a hospital ward with one.... "What a load of bullshit. 70% of immigrants are in professions, not factory or fruit picking - those are a tiny few ppl like you go on about http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8154047/Immigration-cap-Which-UK-jobs-do-migrant-workers-really-take.html I'm sure some racist folk did vote Brexit to reduce immigration of other races but I'm sure they are no more numerous as a percentage than traitorous, selfish, cognitively dissident crooks number among the remoaners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd like to see more emigrants - beginning with those Brits who do nothing but sit on their arse and make out immigrants have taken all the jobs. there is this..... the other dirty secret is that a lot of immigrants do the jobs that a lot of the "local populations" think are beneath them.... i don't think immigration is a bad thing.... i think the brexit vote has emboldened a certain group of them that they can be more vocal in there hate and anger....... people for example always talk about the NHS, and how it is being abused by foreigners.... but the truth is in hospital you are more likely to be treated by a foreigner, but that a doctor or a nurse, then you are to be in a hospital ward with one....
Very much - the highly skilled, well paid type of immigrant that contributes taxes... ooh but that wouldn't fit in with the debate so well."No conflict. Which jobs they take doesn't change how many don't work at all and claim benefits or burden resources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No conflict. Which jobs they take doesn't change how many don't work at all and claim benefits or burden resources." As I made clear before I'm happy for us to do a purge of all the people who sit on their asses and do nothing for no good reason. I don't care if they're foreign or native, they can all go. The problem is where. I don't think we'd get away with Australia again. What I don't understand is why it's ok for British people to contribute fuck all, but not ok for immigrants to do low level shitty jobs to scrape by. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. Nonsense. Consider how many pay no tax and claim benefits, are children, nearing retirement or already not able to work. 2. What hook? If a foreign country has accepted a refugee it's not our problem. Those are the rules, first point of refuge. Ultimately, if we decide not to take them, there's nothing the foreign country can do since they have no leverage with us. Point one is direct from the treasury, but presumably random fab bloke has better data than them? The current system of international relations is anarchic since there is no 3rd party capable of enforcing agreements between states. Ergo states are only subject to the rules they agree to. If you think that states of comparable power in an anarchic system can simply get one over on each other then there's just a lot more education you need than I have time for. Your short of a lot more than the time to educate me pleb. "Direct from the treasury" tells me everything you know - what your spoon fed by the establishment. Yeah government accounts are all made up, you know better and all immigrants are minimum wage tax dodgers because you say so
I guess bush was behind 9/11 too.
Have you no common sense? No mind of your own at all? Immigrant kids don't contribute a penny but we have to educate them. If their dad is on minimum wage and paying next to nothing in how does that work? What about the cost of healthcare? How much do we collect from all the immigrants that have overrun the NHS? They aren't even working most likely and often claiming benefits. What about those who are too old to work? Or will be soon?
You have no clue.
You're just ignorant because you have some completely non-factual, bigoted view that immigrants are all on minimum wage. I can't be arsed to argue with people like you that don't have a single fact or figure to back them up.
Lead by example then. Provide us with facts and figures that show ALL of the costs to the country and total revenue from immigrants.
Till then we have to go with common sense.
Here are some facts; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study?0p19G=c
Do you have any to counter or just you personal opinion?
Not mine, one of many similar ones in the comments section of that article.
"This isn't solid data.
The report is based on the UK Labour Force survey of 60,000 households in the UK.
Those 60,000 households are 95% private housing.
The UK Labour Force survey is unreliable in the first place and is used by the tories to misrepresent how well the economy is doing.
The UK Labour Force Survey suggests very few people are in poverty in the UK.
You can't be satisfied with a unreliable study based on a unreliable study that is used by the tories to lie about the economy.
Is the left so bereft of honesty to do the same as the tories to defend EU immigration into the UK?"
Saves me telling you"So that's a 'no' you don't have any facts to back up your opinion then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't want freedom of movement. We want Immigration on a points system, selecting, cherry picking the immigrants WE WANT based on the contribution they will make WHEN we need them." May have already ruled it out, which is good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't want freedom of movement. We want Immigration on a points system, selecting, cherry picking the immigrants WE WANT based on the contribution they will make WHEN we need them.May have already ruled it out, which is good." Why? Would a point system restrict immigration more? Would restricting immigration be bad for the economy. Or less tax pay projected. Or the fact to get highly skilled immigration you gave to offer more. Netherlands offer 30% of your wage tax free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't want freedom of movement. We want Immigration on a points system, selecting, cherry picking the immigrants WE WANT based on the contribution they will make WHEN we need them.May have already ruled it out, which is good. Why? Would a point system restrict immigration more? Would restricting immigration be bad for the economy. Or less tax pay projected. Or the fact to get highly skilled immigration you gave to offer more. Netherlands offer 30% of your wage tax free. " Not necessarily. As I said, immigration levels should be based on the UKs workforce needs, not the immigrants desire. A points system allows us to select those we need and reject those we don't. Again as I said we aren't a charity Oh to whoever about facts. I provided all the facts. They are self evident to anyone sufficiently educated and intelligent enough. The kind of "proof" you provide for you spouting got shot to shit instantly so I wouldn't worry about "proof" when your standard of it is so low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't want freedom of movement. We want Immigration on a points system, selecting, cherry picking the immigrants WE WANT based on the contribution they will make WHEN we need them.May have already ruled it out, which is good. Why? Would a point system restrict immigration more? Would restricting immigration be bad for the economy. Or less tax pay projected. Or the fact to get highly skilled immigration you gave to offer more. Netherlands offer 30% of your wage tax free. Not necessarily. As I said, immigration levels should be based on the UKs workforce needs, not the immigrants desire. A points system allows us to select those we need and reject those we don't. Again as I said we aren't a charity Oh to whoever about facts. I provided all the facts. They are self evident to anyone sufficiently educated and intelligent enough. The kind of "proof" you provide for you spouting got shot to shit instantly so I wouldn't worry about "proof" when your standard of it is so low." I like the point system. But why was it ruled out? I do wonder about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't want freedom of movement. We want Immigration on a points system, selecting, cherry picking the immigrants WE WANT based on the contribution they will make WHEN we need them.May have already ruled it out, which is good. Why? Would a point system restrict immigration more? Would restricting immigration be bad for the economy. Or less tax pay projected. Or the fact to get highly skilled immigration you gave to offer more. Netherlands offer 30% of your wage tax free. Not necessarily. As I said, immigration levels should be based on the UKs workforce needs, not the immigrants desire. A points system allows us to select those we need and reject those we don't. Again as I said we aren't a charity Oh to whoever about facts. I provided all the facts. They are self evident to anyone sufficiently educated and intelligent enough. The kind of "proof" you provide for you spouting got shot to shit instantly so I wouldn't worry about "proof" when your standard of it is so low. I like the point system. But why was it ruled out? I do wonder about it." She said that she wanted a more effective way of bringing “some control” over the number of people coming in, she is a remainer at heart, so the leave side wont get what they want as she have the final say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't want freedom of movement. We want Immigration on a points system, selecting, cherry picking the immigrants WE WANT based on the contribution they will make WHEN we need them.May have already ruled it out, which is good. Why? Would a point system restrict immigration more? Would restricting immigration be bad for the economy. Or less tax pay projected. Or the fact to get highly skilled immigration you gave to offer more. Netherlands offer 30% of your wage tax free. Not necessarily. As I said, immigration levels should be based on the UKs workforce needs, not the immigrants desire. A points system allows us to select those we need and reject those we don't. Again as I said we aren't a charity Oh to whoever about facts. I provided all the facts. They are self evident to anyone sufficiently educated and intelligent enough. The kind of "proof" you provide for you spouting got shot to shit instantly so I wouldn't worry about "proof" when your standard of it is so low." You've not provided a single fact or figure to support your intuative idea that immigrants make a negative tax contribution. It would be impossible anyway since they don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities.. Which ones were those? Shall we begin with Liverpool, London, Bristol, Glasgow? .
No I meant which immigrants not which towns have been built or rebuilt
Those are cities that prospered from the slave trade...". The slave trade! Fucking hell it ended 300 years ago man, how about the Romans, should they pay the UK out? Ottoman empire... What about the Barbary coast they enslaved 2 million white Europeans, should they get recompense!... I thought you were at least going to make a half serious attempt at answering my question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People wrongly blame immigrants for a suppression in wages when in reality it is greedy employers using foreigners as cheaper labour. I'm in favour of immigration and think it's great that people want to come here and settle but I don't favour mass unchecked unaccountable immigration as it could put pressure on the jobs market plus there are security concerns too." Get your point re employers. But those immigrants are happy to take the money so aren't blameless x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People wrongly blame immigrants for a suppression in wages when in reality it is greedy employers using foreigners as cheaper labour. I'm in favour of immigration and think it's great that people want to come here and settle but I don't favour mass unchecked unaccountable immigration as it could put pressure on the jobs market plus there are security concerns too. Get your point re employers. But those immigrants are happy to take the money so aren't blameless x" Greed is one of the most ridiculous words to use when analysing economics. An economic system predicated on individuals following self restraint is about as nieve as it gets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! " Point 1 - the private sector have customers who pay at the point of service. NHS, education and council services are not. So not comparable. Those immigrants -note I say not all- who earn minimum wage pay next to nothing into the system but take out much more in terms of healthcare,benefits and education for example. Those immigrants who pay much more into the system I would guess are much fewer in terms of numbers. No sources no facts. Just based on what I see x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! Point 1 - the private sector have customers who pay at the point of service. NHS, education and council services are not. So not comparable. Those immigrants -note I say not all- who earn minimum wage pay next to nothing into the system but take out much more in terms of healthcare,benefits and education for example. Those immigrants who pay much more into the system I would guess are much fewer in terms of numbers. No sources no facts. Just based on what I see x" What difference does it make if you pay at the point of service or not? Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! We live in a capitalist society. You have a fixation on tax. lt's private enterprise that creates jobs. Poor working class areas suffer an extreme amount due to mass immigration. You used the very same argument for housing and a declining population. Less people and more houses means lower price as the demand is lower. The same is true for employment and people. More immigrants = more labour = value of labour goes down. And native Brits are forced to take unlivable wages, in a country with a very high cost of living and are called lazy if they refuse. That's true, but as I've told you before, low skilled British people need to get some skills! They don't have some inherent right to get paid well to do a low skilled job!! " We need people to do low skilled jobs. Some British people are happy to do this and some British people may not be capable of more than this. No one has an inherent right to everything but we do have an obligation to look to fill those jobs with those who are British rather than import cheaper options. Those who do low skilled jobs arent expecting to be paid high wages, just wages that they can live on in this country. To suggest that all those with low skill sets should get more skills is arrogant in my opinion. Why is it ok to accept that those from, say Eastern European countries, are ok to settle for low skilled jobs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! We live in a capitalist society. You have a fixation on tax. lt's private enterprise that creates jobs. Poor working class areas suffer an extreme amount due to mass immigration. You used the very same argument for housing and a declining population. Less people and more houses means lower price as the demand is lower. The same is true for employment and people. More immigrants = more labour = value of labour goes down. And native Brits are forced to take unlivable wages, in a country with a very high cost of living and are called lazy if they refuse. That's true, but as I've told you before, low skilled British people need to get some skills! They don't have some inherent right to get paid well to do a low skilled job!! We need people to do low skilled jobs. Some British people are happy to do this and some British people may not be capable of more than this. No one has an inherent right to everything but we do have an obligation to look to fill those jobs with those who are British rather than import cheaper options. Those who do low skilled jobs arent expecting to be paid high wages, just wages that they can live on in this country. To suggest that all those with low skill sets should get more skills is arrogant in my opinion. Why is it ok to accept that those from, say Eastern European countries, are ok to settle for low skilled jobs?" Capitalism is about the ongoing process of creative destruction. Socialism is about holding back that process to "look after people". One makes most people wealthy, one makes most people poor. This is the great lesson from the cold war. It's just personal philosophy, I don't feel any obligation to give anyone anything just because of where they were born. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! Point 1 - the private sector have customers who pay at the point of service. NHS, education and council services are not. So not comparable. Those immigrants -note I say not all- who earn minimum wage pay next to nothing into the system but take out much more in terms of healthcare,benefits and education for example. Those immigrants who pay much more into the system I would guess are much fewer in terms of numbers. No sources no facts. Just based on what I see x What difference does it make if you pay at the point of service or not? Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? " As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. These sources and statistics can only ever be a snapshot of that particular point in time in any case. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Immigration isn't a flavour of ice cream you like or don't. It's a commodity you either need or don't. Whether or not we need immigrants to grow the population is a matter of debate. With so many unemployed here and the prospect of job losses due to Brexit (foreign companies pulling out if they can't use us to gain access to Europe like Japanese) I can't see it. Then if you consider our badly overstretched hospitals, doctors, schools and housing, it's obvious we need to cherry pick only those who serve a purpose to the country. Britain isn't a charity. Refugees should be granted asylum at the first point according to treaties which is never us. The big issue for many is the clash of cultures that don't mix. History shows us multiculturalism never works for long if at all. Regardless of race, skin colour, geographic origin or anything else, we should make cultural comparability an immigration criteria. If a applicant rejects British social and moral core values, they have no place here. If they can't speak our language it's obvious they will make little contribution so same applies. If they do not expect and wish to fully integrate with the native population and adopt the British way of life, same again, thanks but no thanks Basically best solution is, when in Rome do as the Romans do. 1. It's not possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many tax payers. Immigrants make a net tax contribution here. You never hear the private sector complaining about having too many customers. 2. Regarding refugees. Do you think other countries are suckers? As in, the ones with borders into war zones are just going to blindly accept arbitrary rules about the first country and they will let Britain off the hook if we hide behind such a rule! 1. But you do. Can you get into the Ritz without a tie? Ever been turned away from a club because you're not a member or because they have an age limit? Ever been turned away from a pub because they don't want to accommodate a coach load? And it is possible for taxpayer funded services to get overstretched by having too many taxpayers if the services cost more than the tax collected. OK you've certainly found an exception to the rule, but those are examples are mainly due to marketing or law. If you take a mass consumer product like smart phones, McDonald's, a car wash then they never want less customers. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, yet we have the 18th best healthcare. I don't see any other country, other than Cuba, rushing to copy our model of healthcare either. If the public sector thinks is so damn difficult to serve all their customers, then maybe they could piss off and let the private sector do it with a government-backed, mandatory insurance system. The effects of a declining population are traumatic for an economy (see Japan and Russia). Without immigrants our population would decline and you really won't like what that does to house prices, the stock market, GDP etc maybe but the tax benefits of the amount of immigration that we have seen vary by region, generally poorer areas are worse off and the overall benefit is pretty much neutral Good job tax is collected at the national level and redistributed then!! We live in a capitalist society. You have a fixation on tax. lt's private enterprise that creates jobs. Poor working class areas suffer an extreme amount due to mass immigration. You used the very same argument for housing and a declining population. Less people and more houses means lower price as the demand is lower. The same is true for employment and people. More immigrants = more labour = value of labour goes down. And native Brits are forced to take unlivable wages, in a country with a very high cost of living and are called lazy if they refuse. That's true, but as I've told you before, low skilled British people need to get some skills! They don't have some inherent right to get paid well to do a low skilled job!! We need people to do low skilled jobs. Some British people are happy to do this and some British people may not be capable of more than this. No one has an inherent right to everything but we do have an obligation to look to fill those jobs with those who are British rather than import cheaper options. Those who do low skilled jobs arent expecting to be paid high wages, just wages that they can live on in this country. To suggest that all those with low skill sets should get more skills is arrogant in my opinion. Why is it ok to accept that those from, say Eastern European countries, are ok to settle for low skilled jobs? Capitalism is about the ongoing process of creative destruction. Socialism is about holding back that process to "look after people". One makes most people wealthy, one makes most people poor. This is the great lesson from the cold war. It's just personal philosophy, I don't feel any obligation to give anyone anything just because of where they were born. " And of course, in this country of so called freedom of speech, you are perfectly entitled to you opinions and philosophy. Personally I am somewhere in between. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. " No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. " As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x" OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? " That wasn't your point though. You were comparing taxpayers to customers in the private sector x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? " As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? That wasn't your point though. You were comparing taxpayers to customers in the private sector x" And I still am and I still don't see the difference? Whether I pay for my healthcare via my monthly taxes or using a debit card doesn't appear to me to effect the financial viability of the service. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
"Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
"Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability. Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts". I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
"Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty. "I'm not arguing anything re speeding? Either I am or I'm not. Unless the camera is actually faulty! It's a fact not a probability. Immigrants may make a net contribution today, tomorrow they may not. What I dispute is the evidence you provide stating they do make a net contribution as i believe the Government doesn't have accurate figures as I explained above. And the Guardian is left wing, so it's as reliable as the Daily Mail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
I'm not arguing anything re speeding?
Either I am or I'm not. Unless the camera is actually faulty! It's a fact not a probability.
Immigrants may make a net contribution today, tomorrow they may not. What I dispute is the evidence you provide stating they do make a net contribution as i believe the Government doesn't have accurate figures as I explained above. And the Guardian is left wing, so it's as reliable as the Daily Mail. "Did you read the article? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who cares about facts when you have feelings huh? " Facts can be manipulated by the establishment... unlike feelings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty. "Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money."And if that's the case it doesn't matter if the people using the services are immigrants or not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apart from the ones we brought over after taking what we wanted from their countries to big nice big buildings in our cities.. Which ones were those? Shall we begin with Liverpool, London, Bristol, Glasgow? .
No I meant which immigrants not which towns have been built or rebuilt
Those are cities that prospered from the slave trade....
The slave trade! Fucking hell it ended 300 years ago man, how about the Romans, should they pay the UK out? Ottoman empire... What about the Barbary coast they enslaved 2 million white Europeans, should they get recompense!...
I thought you were at least going to make a half serious attempt at answering my question "Perhaps if you had made a half serious attempt to read the full discussion you would have understood the context in which the comment was made. But hey it's easier to jump in, have a little rant and go. Do you have an opinion to offer, or just more little rants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money.
And if that's the case it doesn't matter if the people using the services are immigrants or not! "You are correct makes no difference what so ever, Education and the NHS both need a lot more funding in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money.
And if that's the case it doesn't matter if the people using the services are immigrants or not!
You are correct makes no difference what so ever, Education and the NHS both need a lot more funding in my opinion."Right! So when people say "immigrants are straining public services" they are talking shit. What they are doing is blaming immigrants for the simple fact that the government isn't competent enough to match expenditures to income, not the most difficult task in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money.
And if that's the case it doesn't matter if the people using the services are immigrants or not!
You are correct makes no difference what so ever, Education and the NHS both need a lot more funding in my opinion.
Right! So when people say "immigrants are straining public services" they are talking shit. What they are doing is blaming immigrants for the simple fact that the government isn't competent enough to match expenditures to income, not the most difficult task in the world. "The more people using public services the more money and people we need to run those services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money.
And if that's the case it doesn't matter if the people using the services are immigrants or not!
You are correct makes no difference what so ever, Education and the NHS both need a lot more funding in my opinion.
Right! So when people say "immigrants are straining public services" they are talking shit. What they are doing is blaming immigrants for the simple fact that the government isn't competent enough to match expenditures to income, not the most difficult task in the world.
The more people using public services the more money and people we need to run those services. "Yup, so it's a good job immigrants make a net tax contribution. Don't even start on what state the NHS would be in without immigrants working there! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why not read the actual studies on immigrant tax contributions rather than guessing? As the government's data on numbers of immigrants and issue of national insurance numbers dont tally, forgive me for not wasting my time on any sources of net losses or gains of immigrants from Government departments. And as for studies that are funded by one political persuasion or another, again I won't waste my time. I speak as I see, using my experience. Which may or may not be accurate. Having sources and statistics doesnt make your argument right and mine wrong. No but it's a matter of probability. The probability that all the studies covering multiple years find a net contribution, but there isn't actually a net contribution is pretty low. You probably suffer from the representative heuristic. As for the point of service part, of course no one is going to turn away a customer with cash or card in hand to buy a product or service. A private company wouldnt turn away a paying customer. You don't show up at school on a Monday morning with your credit card to pay for tbis weeks education. Or at the hospital to pay for an operation. Unless you have gone private of course! Schools and hospitals cannot and would not turn someone away. McDonalds would x OK and why does that make these services inherently different? Schools and hospitals don't need to turn anyone away, they simply need to be provided with tax revenue proportional to the services they deliver. Why is that too much to ask of our government? As for the first point re probability, you can accuse me of suffering from whatever you like
But probability is just that - it doesn't mean it is certain.
I dont believe the studies are accurate. My belief. Which I formed via experience. It doesn't make you right or me wrong or vice versa.
Is that how you live your whole life? "Im sorry officer, but I just dont BELIEVE that I was speeding, so you can't give me a ticket"
Re speeding. Either I am - fact- or I'm not. Its not a case of probability.
Not sure what your point is? Guessing it is to do with your fixation on so called "experts".
I will live my life as I see fit. I'm sure you do too.
Taxes are also a matter of fact. Immigrants either make a net contribution or they don't. What you are actually arguing is that the speed camera is faulty.
Does,nt matter how much anyone pays in taxes if the Government don't pass it on to the services that need the money.
And if that's the case it doesn't matter if the people using the services are immigrants or not!
You are correct makes no difference what so ever, Education and the NHS both need a lot more funding in my opinion.
Right! So when people say "immigrants are straining public services" they are talking shit. What they are doing is blaming immigrants for the simple fact that the government isn't competent enough to match expenditures to income, not the most difficult task in the world.
The more people using public services the more money and people we need to run those services.
Yup, so it's a good job immigrants make a net tax contribution. Don't even start on what state the NHS would be in without immigrants working there! "I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two." As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. " And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution." I'm afraid the question doesn't make sense. There are no guarantees in a capitalist free market economy. They have in the past so there's not a lot of reason to expect they wouldn't in future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution. I'm afraid the question doesn't make sense. There are no guarantees in a capitalist free market economy. They have in the past so there's not a lot of reason to expect they wouldn't in future. " Why does the question not make sense? You said you were happy for as many migrants come here as long as they pay a net tax contribution so if they are,nt making that contribution you don't want them here right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution. I'm afraid the question doesn't make sense. There are no guarantees in a capitalist free market economy. They have in the past so there's not a lot of reason to expect they wouldn't in future. Why does the question not make sense? You said you were happy for as many migrants come here as long as they pay a net tax contribution so if they are,nt making that contribution you don't want them here right." It doesn't make sense because there's no way for the government to 'guarantee' very much in the economy. They can't guarantee there will be growth, they can't guarantee there won't be a banking crisis, they can't guarantee inflation will stay below 2.5%... We just know that if we follow certain principles then good things are more likely to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution." There are no guarantees in life but you can be pretty sure that people who leave their homes and travel across the seas don't do it to claim benefits. I doubt that there has been a single British expat who has moved to any country in the world for the sole purpose of claiming benefits. It doesn't matter what the nationality - people move to get a better life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution. I'm afraid the question doesn't make sense. There are no guarantees in a capitalist free market economy. They have in the past so there's not a lot of reason to expect they wouldn't in future. Why does the question not make sense? You said you were happy for as many migrants come here as long as they pay a net tax contribution so if they are,nt making that contribution you don't want them here right. It doesn't make sense because there's no way for the government to 'guarantee' very much in the economy. They can't guarantee there will be growth, they can't guarantee there won't be a banking crisis, they can't guarantee inflation will stay below 2.5%... We just know that if we follow certain principles then good things are more likely to happen." None of that has anything to do with a migrant paying a net tax contribution, you said and I repeat "as long as they pay a net contribution then I,m happy for as many as want to come here". Meaning if they don't pay a net tax contribution you don't want them here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is it about this anti immigrant speech? It really is completely fucking nauseating. Am I living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's or am I living in the United Kingdom in 2016? Despite having virtually no natural resources and a significantly reduced manufacturing base, the U.K. was one of the first countries to emerge from the banking recession of 2008. In no small part this was because of the arrival of EU migrants and their positive tax contribution. In another thread a few weeks an ardent Brexiter was banging on about the large numbers of Europeans who were working at an Argos distribution centre and others spoke about many factories employing large number of Eurooeans. Ironically, this means that these companies have benefited and there is large scale economically driven immigration. Just exactly HOW can this be bad for the country? Would it be better that these companies did not expand or employ people? One half of us is an immigrant and that half pays more in tax than the average UK wage despite arriving here not even able to speak the language. Most of our friends who are immigrants are also successful and contribute significantly to the UK. Immigrants are not your enemy and the U.K. does not want or need to become the North Korea of Europe. Economically driven immigration is absolutely a good thing and that is what we have had from the EU. " hilarious. So how has this affected other countries in the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is it about this anti immigrant speech? It really is completely fucking nauseating. Am I living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's or am I living in the United Kingdom in 2016? Despite having virtually no natural resources and a significantly reduced manufacturing base, the U.K. was one of the first countries to emerge from the banking recession of 2008. In no small part this was because of the arrival of EU migrants and their positive tax contribution. In another thread a few weeks an ardent Brexiter was banging on about the large numbers of Europeans who were working at an Argos distribution centre and others spoke about many factories employing large number of Eurooeans. Ironically, this means that these companies have benefited and there is large scale economically driven immigration. Just exactly HOW can this be bad for the country? Would it be better that these companies did not expand or employ people? One half of us is an immigrant and that half pays more in tax than the average UK wage despite arriving here not even able to speak the language. Most of our friends who are immigrants are also successful and contribute significantly to the UK. Immigrants are not your enemy and the U.K. does not want or need to become the North Korea of Europe. Economically driven immigration is absolutely a good thing and that is what we have had from the EU. hilarious. So how has this affected other countries in the EU?" I don't know and I don't care. If it was so bad I guess that the EU would want to stop it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What we KNOW is that there's loads who pay in fuck all and claim everything under the sun. I don't have numbers as I explained, plebs like us don't have access to meaningful proof of fuckall. We knows there's enough to to say no fucking more though" does that also apply to those who are "home grown".... because as a percentage... they are lively to be a much higher number than those coming in from overseas.... what i think is forgotten at times it that it is bloody hard moving to a new country.... its not something you would do "just for benefits"...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is it about this anti immigrant speech? It really is completely fucking nauseating. Am I living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's or am I living in the United Kingdom in 2016? Despite having virtually no natural resources and a significantly reduced manufacturing base, the U.K. was one of the first countries to emerge from the banking recession of 2008. In no small part this was because of the arrival of EU migrants and their positive tax contribution. In another thread a few weeks an ardent Brexiter was banging on about the large numbers of Europeans who were working at an Argos distribution centre and others spoke about many factories employing large number of Eurooeans. Ironically, this means that these companies have benefited and there is large scale economically driven immigration. Just exactly HOW can this be bad for the country? Would it be better that these companies did not expand or employ people? One half of us is an immigrant and that half pays more in tax than the average UK wage despite arriving here not even able to speak the language. Most of our friends who are immigrants are also successful and contribute significantly to the UK. Immigrants are not your enemy and the U.K. does not want or need to become the North Korea of Europe. Economically driven immigration is absolutely a good thing and that is what we have had from the EU. hilarious. So how has this affected other countries in the EU? I don't know and I don't care. If it was so bad I guess that the EU would want to stop it." you don't know and you don't care? As long as your country is ok and you're doing well thats alright then eh? Do you want to think again who has the 'Little Englander' attitude? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is it about this anti immigrant speech? It really is completely fucking nauseating. Am I living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's or am I living in the United Kingdom in 2016? Despite having virtually no natural resources and a significantly reduced manufacturing base, the U.K. was one of the first countries to emerge from the banking recession of 2008. In no small part this was because of the arrival of EU migrants and their positive tax contribution. In another thread a few weeks an ardent Brexiter was banging on about the large numbers of Europeans who were working at an Argos distribution centre and others spoke about many factories employing large number of Eurooeans. Ironically, this means that these companies have benefited and there is large scale economically driven immigration. Just exactly HOW can this be bad for the country? Would it be better that these companies did not expand or employ people? One half of us is an immigrant and that half pays more in tax than the average UK wage despite arriving here not even able to speak the language. Most of our friends who are immigrants are also successful and contribute significantly to the UK. Immigrants are not your enemy and the U.K. does not want or need to become the North Korea of Europe. Economically driven immigration is absolutely a good thing and that is what we have had from the EU. hilarious. So how has this affected other countries in the EU? I don't know and I don't care. If it was so bad I guess that the EU would want to stop it. you don't know and you don't care? As long as your country is ok and you're doing well thats alright then eh? Do you want to think again who has the 'Little Englander' attitude?" We all have a finite capacity to absorb information and the effect of EU migration into the UK is something that I know about because I live here. The effect of EU emigration on (for example) Spain is not something that I know about because I don't live there. However, I would imagine that the EU would know and that if it were particularly bad, the EU would not be championing the free movement of people. As a general principle, I would imagine that if a country/region/local area were to fall on hard times, it would extremely beneficial for its population to know that they had the choice and opportunity to seek a life elsewhere without fear of persecution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have no problem with immigrants working any where but I do believe we should slow down the influx migrants and concentrate more on refugees the problem is separating the two. As long as the immigrants make a net tax contribution then I'm happy to have as many as want to come. That's what's best for me financially and I don't have sympathy for unskilled workers in an economy where I have to pay tax to provide free education. I think we have a moral responsibility to help refugees but there's an economic limit on how many we can help. And how do you guarantee that they will make a tax contribution. I'm afraid the question doesn't make sense. There are no guarantees in a capitalist free market economy. They have in the past so there's not a lot of reason to expect they wouldn't in future. Why does the question not make sense? You said you were happy for as many migrants come here as long as they pay a net tax contribution so if they are,nt making that contribution you don't want them here right. It doesn't make sense because there's no way for the government to 'guarantee' very much in the economy. They can't guarantee there will be growth, they can't guarantee there won't be a banking crisis, they can't guarantee inflation will stay below 2.5%... We just know that if we follow certain principles then good things are more likely to happen. None of that has anything to do with a migrant paying a net tax contribution, you said and I repeat "as long as they pay a net contribution then I,m happy for as many as want to come here". Meaning if they don't pay a net tax contribution you don't want them here." Yes, I did. Why is this confusing you? What is the apparent contradiction? I'm talking about an average you understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What we KNOW is that there's loads who pay in fuck all and claim everything under the sun. I don't have numbers as I explained, plebs like us don't have access to meaningful proof of fuckall. We knows there's enough to to say no fucking more though does that also apply to those who are "home grown".... because as a percentage... they are lively to be a much higher number than those coming in from overseas.... what i think is forgotten at times it that it is bloody hard moving to a new country.... its not something you would do "just for benefits"......" No need for facts and figures here _abio, we knows it in our bones we does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is it about this anti immigrant speech? It really is completely fucking nauseating. Am I living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's or am I living in the United Kingdom in 2016? Despite having virtually no natural resources and a significantly reduced manufacturing base, the U.K. was one of the first countries to emerge from the banking recession of 2008. In no small part this was because of the arrival of EU migrants and their positive tax contribution. In another thread a few weeks an ardent Brexiter was banging on about the large numbers of Europeans who were working at an Argos distribution centre and others spoke about many factories employing large number of Eurooeans. Ironically, this means that these companies have benefited and there is large scale economically driven immigration. Just exactly HOW can this be bad for the country? Would it be better that these companies did not expand or employ people? One half of us is an immigrant and that half pays more in tax than the average UK wage despite arriving here not even able to speak the language. Most of our friends who are immigrants are also successful and contribute significantly to the UK. Immigrants are not your enemy and the U.K. does not want or need to become the North Korea of Europe. Economically driven immigration is absolutely a good thing and that is what we have had from the EU. hilarious. So how has this affected other countries in the EU? I don't know and I don't care. If it was so bad I guess that the EU would want to stop it. you don't know and you don't care? As long as your country is ok and you're doing well thats alright then eh? Do you want to think again who has the 'Little Englander' attitude? We all have a finite capacity to absorb information and the effect of EU migration into the UK is something that I know about because I live here. The effect of EU emigration on (for example) Spain is not something that I know about because I don't live there. However, I would imagine that the EU would know and that if it were particularly bad, the EU would not be championing the free movement of people. As a general principle, I would imagine that if a country/region/local area were to fall on hard times, it would extremely beneficial for its population to know that they had the choice and opportunity to seek a life elsewhere without fear of persecution." What? All of them? Or just the young able bodied and those with no ties or commitments? And if restricting movement is so bad or 'North Korean' then why does the EU restrict movement into the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last I read the net gain from immigrants to the economy was pretty substantial. " Can't be, can't listen to government figures when you knows it yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last I read the net gain from immigrants to the economy was pretty substantial. We'll be thankful to a fair number of them when we need them to pay for our future pensions and healthcare." the last time I read it it was neutral. So who pays for their pensions and healthcare when they are older? Who pays for the pensions and healthcare in the countries they came from? Or do elderly foreigners not matter as long as you're ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last I read the net gain from immigrants to the economy was pretty substantial. We'll be thankful to a fair number of them when we need them to pay for our future pensions and healthcare. the last time I read it it was neutral. So who pays for their pensions and healthcare when they are older? Who pays for the pensions and healthcare in the countries they came from? Or do elderly foreigners not matter as long as you're ok?" Good news, it's better than neutral: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study?0p19G=c Pensions have always been a pyramid scheme and always will be. There's nothing clever about pensions, they've just worked because the world's population has been increasing as long as they've been around. The serious answer to that question is that we need robots to increasingly take over the production of resources. That's the only serious way you can have a bigger 'old' population and a smaller 'young' one without a big drop in living standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have no issue if they contribute Integrate Add something Otherwise It's a drain on society Nhs Housing Economy " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What we KNOW is that there's loads who pay in fuck all and claim everything under the sun. I don't have numbers as I explained, plebs like us don't have access to meaningful proof of fuckall. We knows there's enough to to say no fucking more though does that also apply to those who are "home grown".... because as a percentage... they are lively to be a much higher number than those coming in from overseas.... what i think is forgotten at times it that it is bloody hard moving to a new country.... its not something you would do "just for benefits"......" How can you be an immigrant if your born here? That's a contradiction in terms mate. anyway, my opinion about future immigration policy in no way even touches on immigrants who are here now. Regardless of Brexit nobody who has made a life here already should be threatened with deportation. Some should never have been let in but what's done is done. I do think people who come to live in The Uk should have to integrate though. No areas should become this or that immigrant area. Government needs to promote British values to them rather than trying to promote theirs to us - it's our country, our culture of fuck off imo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
