Minister tells immigrant to go home.

[boyfriday]

All the calculations are fiddled.

Ok so the playing field's level-calculations supporting the case of immigrants can't be relied on, but nor can those used to denigrate them.

Things like the cost of counter terrorism for home grown jihadists is never included.

What do you think those costs are? How do you think they compare to the revenue the exchequer receives from Muslims nationally?

 

What about the hidden revenues from such things as VAT, council tax, road fuel tax? After all Muslims (even the jihadists!) buy things, live in properties and drive vehicles.

[angos]

 

How do you know this? Most immigrants are of working age,

The majority of working people don't make a net contribution, they are a net drain on the government coffers.

 

pensioners are mainly made up of the indigenous-have a look at the pernicious effects of the ageing population when you have two minutes and solutions for it's remedy.

Have you tried that calculation when considering the net-positive contribution of the indigenous, without 'averaging out', their contribution?

This is a problem that exists only in your mind, working people can easily support the elderly if they didn't also have to support the millions of working age people that don't work.

[mikeye]

Ok so the playing field's level-calculations supporting the case of immigrants can't be relied on, but nor can those used to denigrate them.

What do you think those costs are? How do you think they compare to the revenue the exchequer receives from Muslims nationally?

 

What about the hidden revenues from such things as VAT, council tax, road fuel tax? After all Muslims (even the jihadists!) buy things, live in properties and drive vehicles.

 

 

I'm sorry, I didn't explain clearly so its understandable you misunderstood me. I'm not complaining about all the costs. I was looking at it as an accountant would when compiling a balance sheet. I don't think the costs of anti terrorism are included in the costs part of the accounts. This costs billions every year and would wipe out, easily, the amount of tax paid. Then there's the use of public services. You make out that tax paid is all profit for the government. It isn't it pays for public services. So the tax paid is not a profit, it pays the expenses the tax payer creates.

 

Then there are increases in public services, like those incurred by the councils and police in areas like Page Hall that have become money eating ghettos. The (white) immigrants there are very much in deficit. None of them work, or very few do and they just soak up everything on offer. Don't believe me ask many of the decent British Muslims who are now suffering at the hands of these people.

 

So my point was if we're going to be told that immigration is financially beneficial lets have more honesty about the costs.

[colinut]

And what is wrong with your thinking is that most of the benefits (of living in this country) are not claimed.

 

I'm confused. What do you mean by this?

 

Immigrants put down roots.

 

Providing you are white British, you are of Germanic/Viking or French descent. And your Queen is German. Are you one of those roots?

 

When you add it all up, most immigrants do not currently make a net positive contribution.

 

Show us the numbers otherwise you're talking rubbish.

 

The immigrant in question obviously has no skills we need or he'd be allowed in. He has no money. He has a family that he will bring over if we let him stay. He doesn't want to embrace our culture (he didn't stay in France because his daughter wouldn't be able to wear the burka). He will take more from the country then he will ever put in.

 

This is about as presumptuous and prejudicial as it gets. You have no idea about this man's skills, financial situation or his plans for his family. Nonetheless his preference for embracing British culture. As for the burka comments, it just about shows your level of ignorance/arrogance.

 

Please tell me why we should welcome him?

 

I just wish you were in his situation. All you did was being born here. Nothing more. As I type this I'm starting to regret even answering you. Not sure if you actually are really that simple or you're just trolling. I hope the later.

[Zamo]

BF you can be such hard work!

 

By immigrants or the indigenous.

 

Both of course.

 

But you haven't have you?

 

No and nor have you but it didn't stop you from stating immigrants make a net positive contribution. You provided a link to one study into it and I another. Depending on which method you prefer the result could come out at approximately £2billion either side of breakeven.

 

Even if I were to concede a £2billion net gain it doesn't undermined my argument. If we do not allow entry to those that are unlikely to make a net-positive contribution then the net gain from immigration would go up dramatically. Surely, even you cannot dispute that?

 

How do you know this? Most immigrants are of working age, pensioners are mainly made up of the indigenous-have a look at the pernicious effects of the ageing population when you have two minutes and solutions for it's remedy.

Have you tried that calculation when considering the net-positive contribution of the indigenous, without 'averaging out', their contribution?

 

It is the same calculation for the indigenous population. You will remember another thread where I split this into fifths - 1/5th make a net positive contribution, 1/5th breakeven and the final 3/5ths make a net-negative contribution.

 

I can't prove that it is the same split for immigrants but I would have thought it would be similar but with perhaps even more making a net-negative contribution because most immigrants come here to escape poverty.

 

The only real difference between the indigenous poor and the immigrant poor is we don't have a choice but to keep those born here but we can turn away those not.

 

Just as an example, my grandparents came to the UK about 60 years ago, they left behind their 5 children and brought them over when they could afford to do so. All of their children got educated and worked, some in areas of massive labour shortages within the NHS and education. They're all long retired now and would have been appalled to have been a burden on the state-they're experiences aren't exceptional as far as immigrants are concerned, but no doubt you'll try to tell me different.

 

Different times and different circumstances.

 

Firstly, people from commonwealth countries had a right to come here at that time. Secondly, they came and took work in areas where there was a labour shortage (as you said). And finally, the amount that could be taken out of 'the system' was substantially less (because there was no such thing as WFTC or housing benefit) and as a result fewer people made a net-negative contribution.

 

We shouldn't, he's overstayed his welcome, but don't confuse a discussion about a failed asylum seeker with immigration generally.

 

No one's saying immigration shouldn't be strictly controlled by statements such as your own tend to polarise an argument whereby people who challenge what you say are seen as 'right on groups putting a spin on things', that's certainly not the case as far as Im concerned.

 

There is no doubt that 'right on groups' like the Refugee Council are spinning the argument. They frequently claim things like a "£2 billion net contribution" to counter calls for tighter immigration controls or even to advocate relaxing them. I personally do not believe such figures because they conveniently ignore things like the £4 billion capital spend needed for new schools to meet the demand for school places because of mass immigration. But, either way, the measure itself is wrong because it is a blunt tool. We need to know the raitio between those making a positive contribution and those not in order to assess the effectiveness of immigration policy/controls i.e. how effectively are we screening out the later in order to maximise the benefits of immigration.

[Cyclone]

It's already the case that immigrants require permission to come here (from outside the EU) and this includes an assessment of their likely economic contribution.

[Jason Bourne]

The Iraqi doesn't seem to want to go home...despite it being a safe haven for him to return to, maybe he is used to nice UK.

 

His life is not in danger, yes as an ex serviceman thats spent eight months in Basra, Iraq...I'd say it's safe now. Thank you.

 

Is it really safe in Iraq now?

[Anglersvista]

Probably not as safe as walking down a street in Page Hall, not as dangerous as walking to the bazaar in Kabul (somewhere in-between) But, as a white European, I probably wouldn't want to live in Basra for fear of kidnap and eventual loss of head. But bear in mind this bloke is an Iraqi.

[boyfriday]

The majority of working people don't make a net contribution, they are a net drain on the government coffers.

Not sure I follow your logic there.

This is a problem that exists only in your mind, working people can easily support the elderly if they didn't also have to support the millions of working age people that don't work.

 

Which school taught you that strand of macro economics?

 

Of course most commentators would disagree with you, the plain facts are people retired now and approaching retirement never paid enough into the system to sustain their old age.

 

This is what the government say:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/value-for-money-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/

 

..and the Bank of England:

 

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/workingpapers/wp159.pdf

 

Due to the misconception that national insurance was some kind of insurance fund, it could never do the job it was intended to do based on funding levels, increases in life expectancy, reductions in birthrate and reductions in retirement ages.

 

Lifestyles have also changed in the post war period there was still an expectation that the families of people in old age would share the responsibility for looking after them, that's now rarely the case so the state has to do it.

[Jason Bourne]

Probably not as safe as walking down a street in Page Hall, not as dangerous as walking to the bazaar in Kabul (somewhere in-between) But, as a white European, I probably wouldn't want to live in Basra for fear of kidnap and eventual loss of head. But bear in mind this bloke is an Iraqi.

 

Ah, I see you've dodged the question.

 

Let me repeat it:

 

Is it really safe in Iraq now?

 

Give me a Yes or a No answer.

 

Dodge the question again, and we can all take that as a resounding No. It is not safe in Iraq.