Should We Leave the EU?

[Barn]

From the tax rebates, which I literally mentioned in the exact same sentence.

Not in the post I was replying to. You only mentioned rebates after insulting me for querying your first post.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not in the post I was replying to. You only mentioned rebates after insulting me for querying your first post.

Stating that you are using a diversionary tactic (or, if you really want me to spell it out: a false dichotomy) is not insulting you.

 

[Barn]

You might like to explain which rebates could be cancelled to raise the billions and billions needed for investment in capital infrastructure. In any event, the biggest 'rebate' out there to the rich is surely the combination of tax credits and uncontrolled immigration allowing the rich to profit from terribly low pay.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You might like to explain which rebates could be cancelled to raise the billions and billions needed for investment in capital infrastructure. In any event, the biggest 'rebate' out there to the rich is surely the combination of tax credits and uncontrolled immigration allowing the rich to profit from terribly low pay.

If people are bringing additional tax income beyond what they spend, yet the services are creaking, the fact is that that money must be being spent elsewhere. I need not suggest an alternative.

The fact is, that without that we would actually be worse off in paying for whatever it is that is currently benefiting from that. So sophistry about me not specifying exactly what need be cut is irrelevant, because whatever it is would suffer regardless.

And that is why arguing about what must be cut is diversionary, because it misses the point of the lost revenue upon Brexit.

 

[anme]

A point you are both missing is that if the UK adopts something like the Norwegian model (which is the only proposal anyone has made when I've asked on this thread what direction the UK should take upon "brexit"), freedom of movement and freedom to work will remain in place.

 

[Barn]

If people are bringing additional tax income beyond what they spend, yet the services are creaking, the fact is that that money must be being spent elsewhere.

That's almost precisely what I said originally (I used the word overfunding because you used the word divert) before you accused me of diversionary tactics, sophistry and using false dichotomies!

Alternatively, your economic model is wrong and, although it takes into account tax from and welfare to European migrants, it doesn't take into account capital investment requirements and the need for these to happen unpredictably quickly, which is what lots of people mean when they talk of services 'creaking'.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That's almost precisely what I said originally (I used the word overfunding because you used the word divert) before you accused me of diversionary tactics, sophistry and using false dichotomies!

Alternatively, your economic model is wrong and, although it takes into account tax from and welfare to European migrants, it doesn't take into account capital investment requirements and the need for these to happen unpredictably quickly, which is what lots of people mean when they talk of services 'creaking'.

I know it is, but you wanted me to specify. The fact that it happens and where it happens are not the same thing.

All people coming to the UK do not immediately need to use the NHS - they will immediately start paying tax though.

 

[Barn]

I know it is, but you wanted me to specify. The fact that it happens and where it happens are not the same thing.

It is to some extent, because your criticism of the government is only meaningful if there is sufficient slack in other policy areas that can be diverted to your priority areas without causing harm or economic damage.

If this is not possible, practicable or palatable then the extra income generated from immigration is not adequate.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It is to some extent, because your criticism of the government is only meaningful if there is sufficient slack in other policy areas that can be diverted to your priority areas without causing harm or economic damage.

If this is not possible, practicable or palatable then the extra income generated from immigration is not adequate.

Additional revenue is being gained. Additional revenue is not being diverted into the NHS, but somewhere else. We leave the EU, and additional revenue is lost. Money isn't going anywhere at all now. The argument simply doesn't rely on specifying what the other thing actually is.

If you think reducing that revenue elsewhere will cause economic harm, then you think Brexit will cause economic harm. It is very much quantifiable what additional revenue is actually gained from immigration, and it is beneficial to the country at large; they would not be if they took more from the NHS or schooling than they contributed: we're not just comparing taxes with directly received benefits here.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

 

[EM2]

So if we accept all the Brexit arguments that an exit will mean no free movement of EU citizens, how will it help in the reduction of non EU migration which the Government has done nothing to reduce?

 

[Barn]

Additional revenue is being gained. Additional revenue is not being diverted into the NHS, but somewhere else. We leave the EU, and additional revenue is lost. Money isn't going anywhere at all now. The argument simply doesn't rely on specifying what the other thing actually is.

Clearly it does matter, because if there is no realistic ability to "undivert" sufficient funding from whichever mystery location it's actually going then the underlying problem is insufficient income for the current cost base, not poor "diversion policy".

The UCL study revolves around the fact that these are primarily young immigrants with a low relative cost base. But because NET immigration is high we're not just recycling young immigrants every few years. We are building up a permanent population increase who will send kids to school, get sick, lose their jobs, need a pension, etc, just as the rest of us and become every bit as costly as the native population but because of the speed of the increase also precipitate a need for new roads, housing and other infrastructure. (It also presents several assumption models, one of which has no significant meet benefit at all, but only presents the highest one in its headline figures).

 

[anme]

The UCL study revolves around the fact that these are primarily young immigrants with a low relative cost base. But because NET immigration is high we're not just recycling young immigrants every few years. We are building up a permanent population increase who will send kids to school, get sick, lose their jobs, need a pension, etc, just as the rest of us and become every bit as costly as the native population but because of the speed of the increase also precipitate a need for new roads, housing and other infrastructure. (It also presents several assumption models, one of which has no significant meet benefit at all, but only presents the highest one in its headline figures).

So it's very important that we continue to send old British people to live in Spain, right?

 

[NSEFAN]

The UCL study revolves around the fact that these are primarily young immigrants with a low relative cost base. But because NET immigration is high we're not just recycling young immigrants every few years. We are building up a permanent population increase who will send kids to school, get sick, lose their jobs, need a pension, etc, just as the rest of us and become every bit as costly as the native population but because of the speed of the increase also precipitate a need for new roads, housing and other infrastructure. (It also presents several assumption models, one of which has no significant meet benefit at all, but only presents the highest one in its headline figures).

What you've described would be true in any case, as we physically need people to work here and pay taxes to support our aging population. Importing workers to do this is cheaper because they don't incur the the costs of schooling, but if they settle then they just contribute further to the problem, as you've described. I believe however that our population increase is not do disastrous as is made out, but could be far better managed than it is right now, as too much is left to "the market" to deal with. If you build 2000 homes then you need appropriate schools, hospitals, utilities , etc.

 

[Barn]

What you've described would be true in any case, as we physically need people to work here and pay taxes to support our aging population. Importing workers to do this is cheaper because they don't incur the the costs of schooling, but if they settle then they just contribute further to the problem, as you've described. I believe however that our population increase is not do disastrous as is made out, but could be far better managed than it is right now, as too much is left to "the market" to deal with. If you build 2000 homes then you need appropriate schools, hospitals, utilities , etc.

Yes, it's largely the suddenness and the uneven concentration that are problematic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So it's very important that we continue to send old British people to live in Spain, right?

It's up to Spain how they feel about that.

 

[DarloRich]

It's up to Spain how they feel about that.

but it is the same argument. Foreigners coming over here (or there!) and stealing our X's. How can it be acceptable for us to "export" elderly people to Spain or France while complaining about "importing" others?

 

[Barn]

"We" are not exporting anybody. Spain has chosen to permit freedom of movement. The Spanish people can choose whether they support that or not.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Clearly it does matter, because if there is no realistic ability to "undivert" sufficient funding from whichever mystery location it's actually going then the underlying problem is insufficient income for the current cost base, not poor "diversion policy".

That money would not be there if we Brexited, though. Your proposed alternative does not solve the problem for these apparently vital services, and is why you keep missing the point about what it actually is.

That's why your argument is sophistry - it is focussing on something that is irrelevant.

 

[Hornet]

That money would not be there if we Brexited, though. Your proposed alternative does not solve the problem for these apparently vital services, and is why you keep missing the point about what it actually is.

That's why your argument is sophistry - it is focussing on something that is irrelevant.

You don't half come out with a load of old pony.

 

[miami]

As I understand it the argument is that people are coming over from Poland age 20, taking jobs, paying taxes, and building a life here, and thus require infrastructure (housing immediately, schools in 10 years, hospitals in 40 years), and that infrastructure costs more than the tax gain. This is the same problem with internal migration (people moving to the south east from elsewhere in the UK)

However this is contrary to the argument that people are coming over from Poland age 20, living in high density 10-to-a-3-bed-house, staying for 10 years earning money, paying taxes, and sending the money back to Poland. After the 10 years they go back to Poland and buy a house for cash.

The other argument is that people are coming form Poland, taking a job in the black market, and not paying direct taxes, paying minimal indirect taxes like vat, and sending most of the money abroad. This happened before Poles had the right to work in the UK and we will go back to that happening after brexit.

You can be against Poles (or Romainians, or Italians) coming to the UK to make a life, or coming to the UK to earn some money, that's fine, vote brexit and be consistent. What annoys me is people saying "I have no problem with people who want to come here and work and pay taxes, but we need to leave the EU anyway because of immigration".

 

[DarloRich]

"We" are not exporting anybody. Spain has chosen to permit freedom of movement. The Spanish people can choose whether they support that or not.

just like we have chosen to permit freedom of movement!

So freedom of movement is fine for decently affluent British people but not for dirty eastern europeans?

 

[Antman]

The WW3 comment was grossly irresponsible spin by Boris. What DC actually said was that it would impact upon our alliances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Luxembourgish is not one of the business languages of Luxembourg. Nobody is expected to learn it upon arrival.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But people losing jobs is all fine and dandy?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So you want to leave the EU to somehow improve pay and conditions under a Tory government?

Market forces dictate pay and conditions, obviously!

 

[Harbornite]

just like we have chosen to permit freedom of movement!

So freedom of movement is fine for decently affluent British people but not for dirty eastern europeans?

That seems to be the case.

 

[Antman]

Pay and conditions have improved substantially since I entered the job market in the late '80s, a guaranteed minimum wage being just one example.
And yet, the unemployment rate in 1989 was slightly lower than it was in 2013 (it has improved recently since then).
So, with poor wages and conditions, just as many people were out of work than with improved wages and conditions.

If there are jobs available but people are not taking them there is normally a reason. All economic migrants are doing is supressing wages.

 

[radamfi]

Brexiters want to make it difficult for us to live, work or retire in countries with better public services or better weather than the UK. They don't care if they are ruining people's dreams, forcing people to endure a lifetime in the UK.

 

[Railops]

Brexiters want to make it difficult for us to live, work or retire in countries with better public services or better weather than the UK. They don't care if they are ruining people's dreams, forcing people to endure a lifetime in the UK.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

 

[radamfi]

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

They want to stop freedom of movement.

 

[EM2]

If there are jobs available but people are not taking them there is normally a reason. All economic migrants are doing is supressing wages.

So Paul from Grimsby won't work picking vegetables or stacking shelves for minimum wage, but Pawel from Gdansk will.
Maybe the reason is that Paul is a lazy git?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

Not really true. If, as a result of Brexit, freedom of movement is stopped, then lots of people will through immigration restrictions be prevented from living where they wish, from pursuing the careers or the studying that they want, and even in some cases from having contact with their own families. They will be instead forced to remain in their home country when they do not wish to do so - and in some cases, that may well include British people being forced to reside in the UK against their wishes (assuming other countries respond in kind to our denying freedom of movement to the UK to their citizens). Maybe you think that's a price worth paying for Brexit, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that that won't happen, because if Brexit is accompanied by removal of freedom of movement, it will. It already happens on a large scale to people from outside the EU, and also affects many British citizens who have family outside the EU.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All economic migrants are doing is supressing wages.

This is simply not true. This has been pointed out to you many times on these forums, and as I recall, on numerous occasions various people have pointed out the reasons why this is not true. So I'm not sure why you continue to repeat something that you must by now surely realize is not true?

Amongst the other things that result from economic migrants are:

• Cheaper food and services etc. within the UK (raising the effective living standards of many other people, including many poorer people).
• Keeping jobs within the UK that would otherwise have been moved abroad.
• Enabling many businesses in the UK to stay afloat: Think for example, agricultural businesses that are under pressure from supermarkets to provide cheap food, under threat that the supermarkets will otherwise simply buy from abroad instead.
• Working in many industries that are unable to recruit enough UK workers (think for example: NHS)
• Buying things for themselves (economic migrants, do need to eat, y'know! They don't just work and never consume anything) - thereby providing more customers for UK businesses.
• Provide Labour and even set up in business in trades related to building - thereby helping to get some more houses built or improved (but obviously the flip side of that is the added pressure on the housing market because migrants need somewhere to live.)

And yes, of course in some cases, one of the effects of economic migrants is to suppress wages - and I don't deny that low wages and poor working conditions is an issue that needs addressing. But is not, as you incorrectly claim, the only impact (or even the only significant impact) they have.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

"I have no problem with people who want to come here and work and pay taxes, but we need to leave the EU anyway because of immigration[/B]".

I DO have a problem with over population. Everyone has fallen for the business mantra of continual year on year growth, increased profits etc etc. This country is overcrowded, the more people who arrive the more uncomfortable it becomes for all of us - pressure on housing, services etc. Immigration is the key where this referendum will be won or lost - it may not change when we leave the EU but the EU are offering us no solutions just even more of an unbridled population shift from East to West. It's quite simple you cannot go on importing another 330'000 people (I'm pretty sure it's a lot more than that in reality) year in year out with out creating a climate of unrest. We are not importing skilled workers or scientists - on the whole we are importing desperate, struggling people.
The answer lies in regeneration of nations not mass population shift - in this the EU has got it disastrously wrong and has totally failed the people of Europe. Of course it will be difficult at first but only by rejecting this crazy EU policy will there be any hope of change.

 

[meridian2]

Economic migration has nothing to do with how wages are set etc. Put simply, if a company can afford salaries after overheads etc, then the workforce might contain a mixture of British and overseas workers and still not drive down the company's salaries.
It's therefore impossible to prove, empirically at least, that overseas workers into a workforce affect said existing workforce's wages.