Housing failure

[vanillaface]

Totally missed the point.
*You* don't have to pay any more tax if the *NET* contribution to the economy is positive. Like what we have now.
In fact, *you* could pay less tax... under those circumstances of net contribution.
What's your answer to that?

There has been a net contribution in tax terms from EU immigration, but it ignored the extra infrastructure costs and the cost of a decrease in quality of life.
Therefore, the real NET cost of EU immigration has been a slight negative, while the cost of non-EU immigration has been an enormous negative.

 

[Mason-]

Sounds like project fear to me.

If you say so. Currently 2/3 of the population is working age, 1/3 is a child/elderly that's a 2:1 ratio of contributor to consumer, I'd argue we're struggling as it is with this ratio. That 2/3 get old, they become the elderly portion, if you still need a 2:1 ratio (arguably it needs to be higher), then over time the number of working people will need to increase to support the number of elderly. How do you get this? More children, more children = more consumers too so short term that's bad. Solution? Immigration, except they get old too if they stay. A system in which the population stays steady and we are self sustaining is the only way. Good luck making it happen. Whether or not you think the UK is overpopulated now, the population has to keep increasing to support the social systems we have in place. It will reach a saturation point.

Totally missed the point.
*You* don't have to pay any more tax if the *NET* contribution to the economy is positive. Like what we have now.
In fact, *you* could pay less tax... under those circumstances of net contribution.
What's your answer to that?

No you've totally missed the point, economic benefit is not what most people care about. The majority of people don't care if GDP goes up or down. They care if they can get GP appointments, they care if their children will be able to buy homes close to them, they care about the schools their children go to, they care about values and culture. Just because someone contributes more tax than they use doesn't mean that everything's tickety boo.

 

[vanillaface]

economic benefit is not what most people care about.

This is what interested me about the referendum.
For Brexiteers, it was mostly about the principle of being self-governing.
For remainers, the phrase "we didn't vote to be poorer" was quite an insight into the difference in the quality of the person making the decision.
It just shows how money and comfort can corrupt a person, assuming that they were of good quality in the first place.

 

[a1ex2001]

A stagnating or even slightly decreasing population would be a-ok with me. How to solve that there would be less tax contributors (working age people) to more tax consumers (children/elderly)? No idea, well I do have some but no political party would stand with them.

Something's got to give though we can't have this perpetual population ponzi scheme.

So come on what are these ideas? If you want to start a revolution you need answers not just a problem? We can all sit here and say world wide population growth is an issue coming up with solutions is what takes the brains and the guts.

 

[a1ex2001]

No you've totally missed the point, economic benefit is not what most people care about. The majority of people don't care if GDP goes up or down. They care if they can get GP appointments, they care if their children will be able to buy homes close to them, they care about the schools their children go to, they care about values and culture. Just because someone contributes more tax than they use doesn't mean that everything's tickety boo.

Yet all the things you list that people supposedly care about are massively related to contribution if you want good schools/GP's etc then you need tax money to pay for it and net contributors are the ones funding it. It is the shortsightedness of people that can't see this that is the issue.

 

[dowie]

Totally missed the point.
*You* don't have to pay any more tax if the *NET* contribution to the economy is positive. Like what we have now.
In fact, *you* could pay less tax... under those circumstances of net contribution.
What's your answer to that?

It is a bit simplistic - when this includes say French Bankers and Romanian gypsy gangs etc...

I'm generally not too phased by immigration as it is overall generally a positive thing but I'm also not averse to it being better controlled rather than open doors to anyone from the EU and extra faff to turf them out even if they're found sleeping rough.

We did import an additional mini-crime wave to London's streets and elsewhere when Romanians were able to come here more easily and you'd likely see more opportunists if/when Albania joins should we remain in the EU.

 

[vanillaface]

if you want good schools/GP's etc then you need tax money to pay for it and net contributors are the ones funding it.

More money needs to be spent on building new schools and hiring more teachers.
Money needs to be spent on the healthcare system.

To be a "net contributor", a person needs to earn more than £40kpa, and that's before the building of new schools and hospitals and employing more teachers and doctors can be done.

You can either have a system of state-supplied school, healthcare and welfare, or you can have mass immigration. You can't have both. Pick one.

 

[200sols]

if you want good schools/GP's etc then you need tax money to pay for it .

Or you need less people..

 

[vanillaface]

Or you need less people..

Yeah, but if we have less people then Labour won't get in, and we have less chance of staying in the EU.
We must be progressive. We must be tolerant. We must be citizens of the world.

 

[a1ex2001]

Or you need less people..

less people is fine provided they are still net contributors or are you suggesting some sort of workhouse program or extermination? If you want to deliver public services you need net contributors so kicking out people who pay in doesn't work.

 

[a1ex2001]

Yeah, but if we have less people then Labour won't get in, and we have less chance of staying in the EU.
We must be progressive. We must be tolerant. We must be citizens of the world.

Good luck trying not to be a citizen of the world, as pandora found closing the box was a little bit challenging. PS I've never voted Labour in my life.

 

[vanillaface]

less people is fine provided they are still net contributors or are you suggesting some sort of workhouse program or extermination? If you want to deliver public services you need net contributors so kicking out people who pay in doesn't work.

It's all about the money, eh?
Less public services would be very lovely, thank you.
Reliance upon the government has an infantilising effect.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yeah, but if we have less people then Labour won't get in, and we have less chance of staying in the EU.
We must be progressive. We must be tolerant. We must be citizens of the world.

Not possible with less people... fewer, perhaps, but until then there's not much to worry about!

 

[vanillaface]

Good luck trying not to be a citizen of the world, as pandora found closing the box was a little bit challenging. PS I've never voted Labour in my life.

Not a single person in the world is a citizen of the world, because the world is not a country, although that is exactly the plan in store for us.
Go and watch 1984 to see what will happen.

 

[vanillaface]

Not possible with less people... fewer, perhaps, but until then there's not much to worry about!

Fewer, yes.
I hope that they never have the idea for "less people", so that they could pack more of us in

 

[inogen]

A system in which the population stays steady and we are self sustaining is the only way. Good luck making it happen.

I agree. I'd also agree that hitting a net immigration target is part of the solution to it.

However the much larger parts of that solution are reducing inequality so that the economic burden of working towards a steady and sustainably demography isn't unequally borne by the poor.

Otherwise, until then and whilst people are eating from foodbanks for instance, and there's talk of raising state retirement age to 75, expressing strong opinions about immigration and dismissing the contribution they make to the economy is just virtue signalling.

 

[inogen]

To be a "net contributor", a person needs to earn more than £40kpa

Any stats to back this claim up?

 

[vanillaface]

Any stats to back this claim up?

Yeah, I found the info quite easily.
I think I used "net contributor income", if that helps.

 

[Mason-]

So come on what are these ideas? If you want to start a revolution you need answers not just a problem? We can all sit here and say world wide population growth is an issue coming up with solutions is what takes the brains and the guts.

Euthanasia is probably the most palatable one.
Replacement rate is just over 2, the obvious thing would be to say people can only have 2 children max. But, that's a pretty big violation of peoples rights and the west lambasted China for it. On top of this as I said the replacement rate is just over 2, so what do you do? A lottery where 1 family in 10 is allowed 3? Nah, not fair.
Increase retirement age significantly to something like 75. Keep pushing workplace pensions so that future generations will mostly be reliant on their own pensions. Increase the lifetime allowance for pensions. Then when people get to retirement age make access to state pension means tested.


Pretty much none of these will happen, especially the last 2. Any party that puts the state pension policy I mentioned above in their manifesto, the opposition will just say "we'll protect state pensions". And in doing so keeping the votes of the elderly, which are the bulk of voters. It's not going to happen.

 

[vanillaface]

The British should be having 3 kids per family and sending people out to the colonies.
That we haven't been doing this is precisely why Canada, Australia and New Zealand are in the trouble they are in.