Jeremy Corbyn

[visage]

Awesome - the government is very in debt at the moment, so presumably that makes everyone in the country very rich? In that case, Gordon was a genius.

When does my cash turn up please?

Incidentally, we're paying a billion pounds a week in interest payments - is that good too?

Historically, no, the government isnt especially in debt:

We were more in debt between 1914 and 1960, and continuously prior to about 1860. So of that 200year period we were in more debt for about half of it. So we're about average at the moment.

As for the interest payments, if you want to not pay interest we just need to find 1.5 trillion quid to pay off the debt. Where do you propose getting it from?

 

[Premier Quality]

So - the aftermath of the Second World War left us with significant debts, however the next 30 years had high inflation and high economic growth, which worked to reduce the debt. Tell me, do you see either of those factors happening again in the near future to bail us out again?

 

[visage]

Why do we need bailing out?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Premier Quality]

The debt needs to reduce so that rather than spending £52 billion a year on interest we can spend it in something that adds value.

 

[Papper]

The debt needs to reduce so that rather than spending £52 billion a year on interest we can spend it in something that adds value.

Most of the debt is owed to Pension Funds and Insurance Companies. Interest on debt is appx 5-8% of tax revenues.

One day there is going to be the mother of all crashes.

 

[visage]

The debt needs to reduce so that rather than spending £52 billion a year on interest we can spend it in something that adds value.

So you want to take 1.5 trillion out of a fragile economy to free up interest payments of 52 billion a year?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Premier Quality]

no. The discussion has been about Gordon's stewardship and how his lack of control of spending has contributed to being this in debt in the first place, with no obvious and immediate way out of it, which has led to a 1.5trillion debt and 1billion interest payments.

Do you feel this level of debt and interest payments are a good thing?

 

[visage]

No, the debt was caused mostly by the global recession. Not because Brown built some hospitals and schools.

Prior to 2008 the deficit level was hardly exceptional compared to historical averages.

You seem to be taking the conclusion you want (Brown wrecked the economy) and trying to shoehorn the facts to fit.

 

[Premier Quality]

So just to summarise then.

You agree spending went up under brown, in line with income during the boom. You agree that when the boom period ended and the bust began, income dropped, spending didn't drop at the same level and so we built up debt. We agree that debt is 1.5 trillion with interest of a billion a week.

But you don't think that debt total has anything at all to do with the debt generated by spending being higher than income from the bust period in Browns time in charge?

It was nothing to do with him in anyway, he's completely blameless as everything was out of his control and in hindsight he shouldn't have done anything differently at all?

 

[Papper]

The forecasted tax revenues (if they remain as they are) do not get near what is required to maintain the current level of public services if the immigration levels remain constant. They will need to raise taxes or borrow more and more.

 

[visage]

Well, no. Immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in services. They're generally young and healthy, so they dont require much in the way of pensions or the NHS.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Well, no. Immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in services. They're generally young and healthy, so they dont require much in the way of pensions or the NHS.

Now I often have a reserved opinion of the BBC but in this report they counteract your claim. Quite significantly http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

 

[visage]

Now I often have a reserved opinion of the BBC but in this report they counteract your claim. Quite significantly http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

Thats because they include immigrants who have been here a long time - since the mass immigration of the 50's and 60's for example. Thos eimmigrants are now very elderly, and so cost a lot of money, because of pensions and healthcare etc. But the cited study basically looks at how much they contribute *this year* versus how much they cost *this year*, so its obvious why they represent a significant drain.

Its tricky, because on one hand you look at immigrants now and you can make the argument that they pay lots in tax, but take very little, so its all good. But then when they get old they'll start to 'take back' those contributions as they take healthcare and benefits.

What what if they've returned home by then? How many will return home in five years from now? Or ten? Or fifty?

It all hinges on that one question.

But whats clear is that, uncertainty notwithstanding, that cost versus contribution is fairly balanced. The idea that immigrants are taking vast sums of money out of the UK economy is fallacious.

 

[Papper]

Well, no. Immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in services. They're generally young and healthy, so they dont require much in the way of pensions or the NHS.

More likely to have young children therefore an increase in education and maternity care.

I'm all for the low paid paying no tax at all but the shortfall has to be made up elsewhere and it isn't going to be from Amazon, Google or Starbucks.

I don't think migrants doing unskilled low paid work has actually made that much of an impact on the economy but what is apparent to me is that we are going to struggle to meet the demands on public services if the population grows in the way forecasted. The economic boom is not going to happen therefore we either cut, borrow or raise taxes.

 

[visage]

You're right. I'm sure people who study the costs of immigration all managed to completely miss a significant part of their costs.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[FrankMunro-371]

I really do not wish to get involved in this, but immigration is seen by many people as the main issue in this referendum. And it is why the OUT campaign might just win.

 

[Johnny75]

I really do not wish to get involved in this, but immigration is seen by many people as the main issue in this referendum. And it is why the OUT campaign might just win.

Nothing like a good bit of ignorance to stir the bigoted and stupid into action.

There is a conversation to have about immigration but it is immigration as a whole not just from the EU that needs addressing don't you think?

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Immigration has been out of control for years and successive governments have not addressed the issue.

 

[Tredman]

Immigration has been out of control for years and successive governments have not addressed the issue.

What do you want to do Frank? It's roughly half and half EU / non-EU - what's the solution?

 

[Tony Towner]

Nothing like a good bit of ignorance to stir the bigoted and stupid into action.

There is a conversation to have about immigration but it is immigration as a whole not just from the EU that needs addressing don't you think?

The 'bigoted and stupid' have the same number of votes as everyone else though. Frank is correct that for those that will vote leave, this will be the primary reason for doing so in the majority of cases.

You can argue the point as to whether they are ill informed, racist, bigoted or stupid, but as I said at the start of the EU thread people I speak to or conversations I overhear of those who aren't ordinarily politically motivated are all are in favour of out. It'll be interesting to see on the day whether that transmits to a visit to the polling station, but dismissing the feelings of a great number of the electorate is dangerous even if their arguments have more holes in them than a Swiss Cheese.