Do you want to discuss boring politics? (75 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Wonder if this is part of it @Nick


One in four working age Britons have a criminal record.
83% of prisoners don’t have a job 12 months after being released. A quarter of all employees would never take anyone on with a criminal record.
Well done to Greggs, Timpsons, Severn Trent and Greene King who actively seek to employ offenders and give them a fresh start in life.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
Another would be to repatriate the 1% of the population who are illegal immigrants and reduce the 1% added to the population by the legal immigrants.
Click to expand...
Sorry @MalcSB, that was sarcasm… you are right though on this.

The OBR released statistics on the financial impact of low skilled immigration, which is defined as earning 50% (edit) less than median salary. It’s a net cost of £150,000 per person who entered the country at 25 and stayed until they claimed the state pension. The cost rises to up to £500,000 by 80 and £1,000,000 if they lived to 100. By contrast, British born-workers will add £280,000 to the treasury. High skilled migration has a net benefit to the treasury on the same metrics - even up to 100. These stats are from the OBR and whilst their ability as forecaster is patchy at best, it isn’t exactly a far right head case ‘think tank’ and really lays bare the costs of this on public purse.

This does not include the impacts on public services, crime levels and availability of housing and so on. So the costs of low-skilled migration in particular needs to be addressed.

If we don’t get a grip on it and the traditional parties unable to make progress on this we really risk some ugly parties developing in the UK.
 
Last edited:
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Sorry @MalcSB, that was sarcasm… you are right though on this.

The OBR released statistics on the financial impact of low skilled immigration, which is defined as earning less than median salary. It’s a net cost of £150,000 per person who entered the country at 25 and stayed until they claimed the state pension. The cost rises to up to £500,000 by 80 and £1,000,000 if they lived to 100. By contrast, British born-workers will add £280,000 to the treasury. High skilled migration has a net benefit to the treasury on the same metrics - even up to 100. These stats are from the OBR and whilst their ability as forecaster is patchy at best, it isn’t exactly a far right head case ‘think tank’ and really lays bare the costs of this on public purse.

This does not include the impacts on public services, crime levels and availability of housing and so on. So the costs of low-skilled migration in particular needs to be addressed.

If we don’t get a grip on it and the traditional parties unable to make progress on this we really risk some ugly parties developing in the UK.
Click to expand...
So maybe then bothering to make traditionally poorly paid and treated professions the opposite, and giving a shit about state education, are places for this government to focus on.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
So maybe then bothering to make traditionally poorly paid and treated professions the opposite, and giving a shit about state education, are places for this government to focus on.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s a problem when these professions are government employees…

… half of this so-called £22bn ‘black hole’ in the budget is public sector pay rises.

With respect, of the 500-800k net migration, they’re not all going into the NHS, education and other public sector professions. For example, there was a massive discrepancy in health care visa being granted versus the people working in said professions.

So no, what you outline is a completely different conversation to be had.
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Sorry @MalcSB, that was sarcasm… you are right though on this.

The OBR released statistics on the financial impact of low skilled immigration, which is defined as earning less than median salary. It’s a net cost of £150,000 per person who entered the country at 25 and stayed until they claimed the state pension. The cost rises to up to £500,000 by 80 and £1,000,000 if they lived to 100. By contrast, British born-workers will add £280,000 to the treasury. High skilled migration has a net benefit to the treasury on the same metrics - even up to 100. These stats are from the OBR and whilst their ability as forecaster is patchy at best, it isn’t exactly a far right head case ‘think tank’ and really lays bare the costs of this on public purse.

This does not include the impacts on public services, crime levels and availability of housing and so on. So the costs of low-skilled migration in particular needs to be addressed.

If we don’t get a grip on it and the traditional parties unable to make progress on this we really risk some ugly parties developing in the UK.
Click to expand...

Not quite following the figures quoted here (although not directly disputing them!). How is there an attached cost to lower-income immigrants in comparison to lower-income indigenous? Are there running costs to immigration that I’m unaware of? Do they disproportionately access public services?
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
Not quite following the figures quoted here (although not directly disputing them!). How is there an attached cost to lower-income immigrants in comparison to lower-income indigenous? Are there running costs to immigration that I’m unaware of? Do they disproportionately access public services?
Click to expand...

A question for the OBR as they would have crunch the numbers using ‘x, y and z’ variables. The jist of it would be tax/NI income paid (0% tax on £12.75k) versus what people take out of the NHS and the benefits system (in and out of work). Then there’s the cost of schooling any dependents and extra demand for housing and so on.

Overall, migration tends to be a net benefit because you want a system that attracts wealth creators and elite talent to live.

Please note, I’ve added ‘50%’ to the original post.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
Not quite following the figures quoted here (although not directly disputing them!). How is there an attached cost to lower-income immigrants in comparison to lower-income indigenous? Are there running costs to immigration that I’m unaware of? Do they disproportionately access public services?
Click to expand...
There probably isn’t a difference. However, you can stop/ reduce legal immigration and hence effectively importing those costs. Also illegal immigration needs to be stopped with repatriation.
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
There probably isn’t a difference. However, you can stop/ reduce legal immigration and hence effectively importing those costs. Also illegal immigration needs to be stopped with repatriation.
Click to expand...

The numbers seem to suggest there is a difference, unless I’m reading it wrong.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
What do you the BOE Know, idiots are watching for a sign.
No they're not they will be acting too late and a series of liquidations await, fucking retards, how is left to them?
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
SBAndy said:
The numbers seem to suggest there is a difference, unless I’m reading it wrong.
Click to expand...
It is often argued that there is an economic benefit from legal immigration. What the figures are showing is that this is not always the case in so far as low skilled immigrants are concerned, As far as I can see, low skilled indigenous population will still have those costs associated with them k however they are indigenous and there is no choice about them. There is a choice when it comes to immigration.

I read somewhere that in Denmark, which has been held up as a paragon of virtue with respect to immigration, they have identified higher criminal activity - 2.4 times the rate of indigenous Danes -being associated with immigrants there. This was in the context that such statistics are not published in the UK as debate around immigration and it’s consequences generally descends in to accusations of racism.
 
SBAndy

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
It is often argued that there is an economic benefit from legal immigration. What the figures are showing is that this is not always the case in so far as low skilled immigrants are concerned, As far as I can see, low skilled indigenous population will still have those costs associated with them k however they are indigenous and there is no choice about them. There is a choice when it comes to immigration.

I read somewhere that in Denmark, which has been held up as a paragon of virtue with respect to immigration, they have identified higher criminal activity - 2.4 times the rate of indigenous Danes -being associated with immigrants there. This was in the context that such statistics are not published in the UK as debate around immigration and its consequences generally descends in to accusations of racism.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that. I’ve just gone back and re-read, seems I had indeed misread as it pitted low-skilled immigrant workers vs general indigenous workers.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
But no where as good as you thought they would be on 5th July?
Click to expand...
Not sure what I expected
I fully expect reform or another populist party to win the next election and destroy all that we hold dear by encouraging the populous to fear others (doesn’t matter who) and blame others (doesn’t matter who) for their problems with no meaningful answers
Society has gone to shit
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
Is a government whose ministers have put a £1billion investment at risk competent? I think not. IIf only they had been offered a free cruise.

www.theguardian.com

P&O Ferries’ owner pulls news of £1bn port investment after ministers criticise firm

Transport secretary denounced DP World over mass sackings while bringing in protections for workers at sea
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
tbf what the ministers said was absolutely spot on so no surprise to see they've been rebuked by Starmer who has chosen to side with the billionaires over the workers
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Not sure what I expected
I fully expect reform or another populist party to win the next election and destroy all that we hold dear by encouraging the populous to fear others (doesn’t matter who) and blame others (doesn’t matter who) for their problems with no meaningful answers
Society has gone to shit
Click to expand...
If only we had a government with a huge mandate that could make some radical decisions and improve the quality of life for millions….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 72 (members: 0, guests: 72)
Top