REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Deutsch Wolf]

Perhaps it depends where you live ? Take Wolverhampton, I daresay there are not many people in Wightwick, Tettenhall or Codsall are concerned about Immigration levels in our City, whereas people in the less affluent areas like Bushbury, Whitmore Reans, Heath Town, Fallings Park etc, might be ? Depending on where you live in England, the job you do, your salary potential (plus loads of other factors of course) may determine whether or not you think that Immigration is having a detrimental effect on your life ? Maybe this is why the so-called affluent areas voted to Remain whilst many Industrialised areas in the Midlands and the North voted to Leave ?

You mean struggling people get whipped up into a frenzy by unscrupulous politicians and elements of the media into a state of blaming some "other" group for their problems? Well I never. Never seen that happen before.

I can honestly say my views on immigration are not informed by where I happen to live. In fact I absolutely despise the political views of the majority where I do live.

My Dad has worked in sheet metal and ventilation all his life and was brought up on Ashmore Park, I'm a multi-lingual graduate who lives in South Staffs but I've also experienced personal hardship to the point of destitution at one point so pigeonhole that if you like. I couldn't even tell you whether I'm supposed to be working class (probably not), middle class (I sound a bit posh but I don't really have enough money to jump on this boat), socialist elite (I don't even know what this means), you tell me.

 

[thehistorymakers]

BECAUSE DEBT IS NOT A BAD THING. SAME AS IMMIGRATION.

Immigration isn't a bad thing if it benifit s the whole of society and you have enough infrastructure in place to cope with the influx. If you don't , the public services get stretched and the low-paid and weakest in society don't benifit but actually lose out. I think you mean some debt is not such a bad thing, but most of it is.

 

[Johnny75]

Looking back over the pages for the last few days, I understand this thread a lot more now. If you don't agree with someone's point of view, or the content of the post or the way it's articulated, it's ok to just resort to ridicule and abuse. For many working class people, this was a big factor for them voting to Leave, fed up of being told that they just were thick, racist bigots. One of my first comments on here was that when we reply to a post, imagine you were sitting across the table in the pub, discussing it over a pint. Many of the comments on here would never get said then. If they did, after a couple of warnings, you would be barred from any decent pub.

Better still though, for 'certain' posters on here, if you are 'Friendly' with the Mods, who probably all voted to Remain, you can be even more abusive to someone just because they voted to Leave, knowing you won't get kicked off ?

Honestly Prog you must have lived a very sheltered life in a lot of very strict pubs if you think people don't speak to each other like that in a pub. This place is very gentle and serene in comparison to some places.

As for your working class people line, this is just UKIP rhetoric and frankly total shit as has been proven time and again (the 60% of Labour voters for example are probably not all middle class). Not all people that voted Leave are thick racist bigots but all thick racist bigots voted to leave. I live just outside of Stoke and the lack of education combined with the total bullshit fed to them by redtops and the Daily Heil are nothing short of embarrassing. One you can lay at the door of the government but the other is simply believing what you are being fed and the majority are simply too stupid to read anything else (Those not born in the UK number 11%)

These are the numbers:
Country of birth Population
United Kingdom 228,294
Poland 1,801
Germany 693
Republic of Ireland 571
Italy 324
Nigeria 323
Turkey 257
Ghana 154
Kenya 150
Portugal 125
Lithuania 122
Romania 101
France 91
Spain 71

That's according to the 2011 census. Now I can't see that a few thousand people have added the need for millions of school places or hospital beds can you?

 

[thehistorymakers]

Indeed. Its a fallacy know as the Straw Man - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Someone says X, THM presents an argument against Y. Its either a deliberate misunderstanding or an inability to comprehend what others are saying.

Or when you close threads when you don't like the answer, or when I was not there, there were posts on the referendum post, but almost none of the had to do with the referendum.
You still haven't answered the question of how high levels of immigration have actually made the low paid or poor better off in the UK? and I have asked it on numerous occasions.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You still haven't answered the question of how high levels of immigration have actually made the low paid or poor better off in the UK? and I have asked it on numerous occasions.

The answer is that there isn't any tangible connection. Plus we don't always do things just so our citizens earn more money, or at least we shouldn't.

 

[visage]

Immigration isn't a bad thing if it benifit s the whole of society and you have enough infrastructure in place to cope with the influx. If you don't , the public services get stretched and the low-paid and weakest in society don't benifit but actually lose out. I think you mean some debt is not such a bad thing, but most of it is.

No.

Many studies have shown that immigration is a net economic benefit - immigrants pay more taxes than they use in services. So, as an example:

Immigrants come in, and use 10Bn of services. They pay 12Bn in tax. If the government uses 10Bn of that tax to provide those services then they make a 'profit' of 2Bn that can be used to provide services for others, pay down debt, lower taxes, whatever.

But what you actually have is:

Immigrants come in, and use 10Bn of services. They pay 12Bn in tax. The government uses 12Bn of that tax to provide tax breaks to billionaires and multinationals and then say that public services are a mess because of the 10Bn of services used by immigrants. Ordinarily this would be regarded as stupid, unless you have idiots willing to swallow their argument.

Hint: That last bit? You.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The only times this thread has been closed has been because it has turned to a complete bunfight.

Nothing to do with mod-conspiracy, nothing to do with your neurotic thoughts that the entire forum is out to get you (it isn't - just a lot of people get very exercised in proving your crass bullshit to be what it is).

And your question you want answered is a complete non sequitur. The two things ARE NOT RELATED.

 

[visage]

You still haven't answered the question of how high levels of immigration have actually made the low paid or poor better off in the UK? and I have asked it on numerous occasions.

It hasnt. And it never will.

But if you really cared about the low paid, rather than it being a convenient argument against immigration, then you'd be demanding a rise in the NMW immediately.

 

[Papper]

Looking back over the pages for the last few days, I understand this thread a lot more now. If you don't agree with someone's point of view, or the content of the post or the way it's articulated, it's ok to just resort to ridicule and abuse. For many working class people, this was a big factor for them voting to Leave, fed up of being told that they just were thick, racist bigots. One of my first comments on here was that when we reply to a post, imagine you were sitting across the table in the pub, discussing it over a pint. Many of the comments on here would never get said then. If they did, after a couple of warnings, you would be barred from any decent pub.

Better still though, for 'certain' posters on here, if you are 'Friendly' with the Mods, who probably all voted to Remain, you can be even more abusive to someone just because they voted to Leave, knowing you won't get kicked off ?

Mmmm. It's took a while for me to get a definitive answer but I got one. Basically, the Cons hate the poor and vulnerable people so cut welfare for their political ends while looking out for the rich who need taxing - not quite sure how rich you have to be though. Immigration has benefitted the economy/population and that successive governments have failed to borrow more (to meet the demands on public services) as the interest payments don't actually mean that much because we've always a done it.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Mmmm. It's took a while for me to get a definitive answer but I got one. Basically, the Cons hate the poor and vulnerable people so cut welfare for their political ends while looking out for the rich who need taxing - not quite sure how rich you have to be though. Immigration has benefitted the economy/population and that successive governments have failed to borrow more (to meet the demands on public services) as the interest payments don't actually mean that much because we've always a done it.

I guess the point is on borrowing, as long as you can service the debt then it doesn't really matter - similar to an interest only mortgage, except you don't have an end date.

 

[Stan Hullis]

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that higher net migration reduces pressure on government debt over time. This result is based on the fact that incoming migrants are more likely to be of working age than the population in general

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR, 2016) forecasted fiscal aggregates—such as net government borrowing and debt as a percentage of GDP—under alternative scenarios of net migration. In their central forecast they use the ONS principal population projection, which assumes net migration of 329,000 in 2015 and 256,000 in 2016, declining to 185,000 in 2021. In the ‘high migration’ scenario, net migration falls to 265,000 by 2021. In the ‘low migration’ scenario, net migration falls to 105,000 by 2021.

The OBR estimates suggest that the government budget surplus in 2020-2021 would be higher under the high migration scenario and lower in the low migration scenario: it projected a £16.9bn surplus in 2010-2021 under the high migration scenario, compared to £5.2bn in the low migration scenario. Debt as a share of GDP would also be lower under the high migration scenario (73.3% vs. 76.1% by 2020-2021).

One of the key drivers behind these results is that incoming migrants are more likely to be of working age than the population in general and therefore more likely to be working and contributing to public finances. The analysis differs from the studies above in that it assumes that if migrants and non-migrants have the same age and gender they will make the same net contributions to public finances. It does not attempt to measure the different components of migrants’ fiscal contributions.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

 

[visage]

I guess the point is on borrowing, as long as you can service the debt then it doesn't really matter - similar to an interest only mortgage, except you don't have an end date.

Exactly. We could choose to pay down the debt - but that would mean running a surplus - so higher taxes or more austerity - in order to pay down a debt that gets eroded by inflation anyway.

 

[visage]

Basically, the Cons hate the poor and vulnerable people so cut welfare for their political ends while looking out for the rich who need taxing

Hate is a strong word - more accurately they see them as not contributing to the enrichment of the nation as a whole - they're a net drag.

- not quite sure how rich you have to be though.

Rich enough to donate to the Tory party.

Immigration has benefitted the economy/population and that successive governments have failed to borrow more (to meet the demands on public services)

No, successive governments have failed to use the proceeds of immigration to provide the services that such immigration requires, because any subsequent knock-on effects can easily be blamed on foreigners.

as the interest payments don't actually mean that much because we've always a done it.

Correct.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

When I first started to earn reasonable money (in relative terms) I could have chosen to pay a whack off my student loan if I'd wanted to. Would have served no purpose though.

Governments carry debt, that is simply the way modern economics work. The people or institutions who loan to governments do so as they obviously get value out of it. Theoretically the Government can carry that debt and use the funds to pay for services and infrastructure.

We seem to be missing out on that last step? Now is that because of:

a) The EU
b) Immigrants
c) The Conservative Government

I do wonder.

 

[Papper]

I guess the point is on borrowing, as long as you can service the debt then it doesn't really matter - similar to an interest only mortgage, except you don't have an end date.

Which tax concessions for the rich need reversing though? Corporation tax too low? Anybody know what the shortfall in funding for public services is - off my head about £200Billion a year might be necessary if we continue with the free movement of labour. How do we plan for the population increase in terms of public services and what is our limit on how much we can borrow. A couple of trillion?

 

[Papper]

Hate is a strong word - more accurately they see them as not contributing to the enrichment of the nation as a whole - they're a net drag.



Rich enough to donate to the Tory party.



No, successive governments have failed to use the proceeds of immigration to provide the services that such immigration requires, because any subsequent knock-on effects can easily be blamed on foreigners.



Correct.

If we say, pay £28K per year as a national income irrespective of having a job (because some can't be forced) and scrap benefits, how much do we need to take off the Tory donors and what is the limit on our national debt? I think this is the way forward - might take a year or two off myself. What is a sensible control of migration in this scenario and how would you control it?

 

[Penk Wolf]

Which tax concessions for the rich need reversing though? Corporation tax too low? Anybody know what the shortfall in funding for public services is - off my head about £200Billion a year might be necessary if we continue with the free movement of labour. How do we plan for the population increase in terms of public services and what is our limit on how much we can borrow. A couple of trillion?

The difficulty I see with corporation tax is that profit doesn't equal cash, so a company could make £400k profit, but their net cash position over the year could be zero. Personally, I would like to see a whole revamp of how corporation tax is calculated and not calculate it based on a bullshit figure.

I don't think it's really relevant what the limit we can borrow is but the maximum we can service. For example, with rates been so low it would be far easier to service a trillion pound date than it would have been 10 years ago.

 

[Papper]

The difficulty I see with corporation tax is that profit doesn't equal cash, so a company could make £400k profit, but their net cash position over the year could be zero. Personally, I would like to see a whole revamp of how corporation tax is calculated and not calculate it based on a bull$#@! figure.

Isn't that called overtrading? But wouldn't that open up a few tax dodges to get around it? Turn your assets into liabilities. Wouldn't it be better to tax the personal income of those that own businesses and leave the rest as a social enterprise?

I don't think it's really relevant what the limit we can borrow is but the maximum we can service. For example, with rates been so low it would be far easier to service a trillion pound date than it would have been 10 years ago.

If we can borrow another trillion though that'll pay for the shortfall and the expected rise in population - what's stopping us? That'll keep us going for another twenty years or so.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

£28k as universal income is absurd, no one is remotely suggesting that.

Someone on JSA currently picks up about £3,200 a year I believe.

 

[Johnny75]

Isn't that called overtrading? But wouldn't that open up a few tax dodges to get around it? Turn your assets into liabilities. Wouldn't it be better to tax the personal income of those that own businesses and leave the rest as a social enterprise?

You want every business to trade as a social enterprise? You know business profits aren't linked to wages directly?

Please excuse me if you know this but if you turn every business into a social enterprise where would the value in those businesses be and what would the city traders trade on? You'd more or less kill the financial markets stone dead.