Tax rises needed 'to prevent NHS misery'

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Tax rises needed 'to prevent NHS misery'

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Stirlingsays 24 May 18 11.46am
Originally posted by serial thriller But looking at your links Stirling, I don't know if any of them really prove that immigration is a huge burden on the taxpayer (except the Mail, but you can't really expect much balance in an article by them in the lead up to the referendum). Migrant Watch simply disputes some of the assumptions of a previous study without providing any counter research, while the BBC article just makes the point that non EEA migrants over a long period take more in welfare and public service provision because they have lived here for longer and have therefore grown old. But they have also - the majority of them - worked in britain, paid taxes like the rest of us and, you would imagine, many will have come from former colonies where their families' labour had contributed to British wealth at a minimal expenditure for generations? Even as someone who was at best ambivalent about Brexit, you can clearly see the economic effects of a downturn in net migration. The endless supply of cheap service labour is drying up, which is surely a major factor in so many high street stores closing their doors. Walk down the road wherever you are and look how many signs are in the windows asking for people to work in Costa, KFC, Pret etc. That could be the trigger for the next recession very easily in the next couple of years, as productivity continues to fall off a cliff. Edited by serial thriller (24 May 2018 11.26am) First things first. I replied to a post that made a claim that wasn't accurate. So when you introduce an argument, as you do in your first paragraph, that it's about the amount of the burden.....well then we are onto different territory. I agree with you that different methodologies will obviously relay different scales. The left took early report claims from the Labour survey study using sliced and diced statistics and made claims that were false pictures of immigration as a whole. All Migration watch did was actually wait for the full study to be released and then relate the actual true picture from statistics from the same study! Not the slicked and diced ones that activists used. It's true that immigration costs us more than it brings in. Like I said, it's bleeding obvious to anyone with common sense. If you are going to allow citizenship to immigrants then they are going to bring in independents. They are going to grow old....Hence all you are doing is providing short term answers and actually just making the problem bigger and worse down the line. This is even when you completely ignore the social cohesion cost and discord that immigration costs. The terror attacks we have to endure. The ghettoization....all of which the left does completely. I state again, the way immigration is practiced in this country is a unsustainable ponzi scheme that creates a bigger and bigger problem. You require a larger and larger young foreign workforce to sustain the older citizen base. It doesn't work and it's a fraud committed on the British people. The sustainable model is the one Japan use. You can work as a foreigner but you can't have citizenship or bring your independents and eventually you have to go back. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 11.49am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 18 11.46am

Originally posted by serial thriller

But looking at your links Stirling, I don't know if any of them really prove that immigration is a huge burden on the taxpayer (except the Mail, but you can't really expect much balance in an article by them in the lead up to the referendum).

Migrant Watch simply disputes some of the assumptions of a previous study without providing any counter research, while the BBC article just makes the point that non EEA migrants over a long period take more in welfare and public service provision because they have lived here for longer and have therefore grown old. But they have also - the majority of them - worked in britain, paid taxes like the rest of us and, you would imagine, many will have come from former colonies where their families' labour had contributed to British wealth at a minimal expenditure for generations?

Even as someone who was at best ambivalent about Brexit, you can clearly see the economic effects of a downturn in net migration. The endless supply of cheap service labour is drying up, which is surely a major factor in so many high street stores closing their doors. Walk down the road wherever you are and look how many signs are in the windows asking for people to work in Costa, KFC, Pret etc. That could be the trigger for the next recession very easily in the next couple of years, as productivity continues to fall off a cliff.

Edited by serial thriller (24 May 2018 11.26am)

First things first.

I replied to a post that made a claim that wasn't accurate. So when you introduce an argument, as you do in your first paragraph, that it's about the amount of the burden.....well then we are onto different territory.

I agree with you that different methodologies will obviously relay different scales. The left took early report claims from the Labour survey study using sliced and diced statistics and made claims that were false pictures of immigration as a whole.

All Migration watch did was actually wait for the full study to be released and then relate the actual true picture from statistics from the same study! Not the slicked and diced ones that activists used. It's true that immigration costs us more than it brings in.

Like I said, it's bleeding obvious to anyone with common sense. If you are going to allow citizenship to immigrants then they are going to bring in independents.

They are going to grow old....Hence all you are doing is providing short term answers and actually just making the problem bigger and worse down the line.

This is even when you completely ignore the social cohesion cost and discord that immigration costs. The terror attacks we have to endure. The ghettoization....all of which the left does completely.

I state again, the way immigration is practiced in this country is a unsustainable ponzi scheme that creates a bigger and bigger problem. You require a larger and larger young foreign workforce to sustain the older citizen base.

It doesn't work and it's a fraud committed on the British people.

The sustainable model is the one Japan use. You can work as a foreigner but you can't have citizenship or bring your independents and eventually you have to go back.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 11.49am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX. 24 May 18 11.54am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays First things first. I replied to a post that made a claim that wasn't accurate. So when you introduce an argument, as you do in your first paragraph, that it's about the amount of the burden.....well then we are onto different territory. I agree with you that different methodologies will obviously relay different scales. The left took early report claims from the Labour survey study using sliced and diced statistics and made claims that were false pictures of immigration as a whole. All Migration watch did was actually wait for the full study to be released and then relate the actual true picture from statistics from the same study! Not the slicked and diced ones that activists used. It's true that immigration costs us more than it brings in. Like I said, it's bleeding obvious to anyone with common sense. If you are going to allow citizenship to immigrants then they are going to bring in independents. They are going to grow old....Hence all you are doing is providing short term answers and actually just making the problem bigger and worse down the line. This is even when you completely ignore the social cohesion cost and discord that immigration costs. The terror attacks we have to endure. The ghettoization....all of which the left does completely. I state again, the way our currency is practiced in this country is a unsustainable ponzi scheme that creates a bigger and bigger problem. You require a larger and larger young foreign workforce to sustain the older citizen base. It doesn't work and it's a fraud committed on the British people. The sustainable model is the one Japan use. You can work as a foreigner but you can't have citizenship or bring your independents and eventually you have to go back. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 11.49am) EFA Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

24 May 18 11.54am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

First things first.

Like I said, it's bleeding obvious to anyone with common sense. If you are going to allow citizenship to immigrants then they are going to bring in independents.

They are going to grow old....Hence all you are doing is providing short term answers and actually just making the problem bigger and worse down the line.

This is even when you completely ignore the social cohesion cost and discord that immigration costs. The terror attacks we have to endure. The ghettoization....all of which the left does completely.

I state again, the way our currency is practiced in this country is a unsustainable ponzi scheme that creates a bigger and bigger problem. You require a larger and larger young foreign workforce to sustain the older citizen base.

It doesn't work and it's a fraud committed on the British people.

The sustainable model is the one Japan use. You can work as a foreigner but you can't have citizenship or bring your independents and eventually you have to go back.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 11.49am)

EFA

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 May 18 12.06pm
Originally posted by .TUX. EFA Keep banging that drum Tux! 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 18 12.06pm

Originally posted by .TUX.

EFA

Keep banging that drum Tux!

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX. 24 May 18 12.11pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Keep banging that drum Tux! I will bud as it's the biggest elephant in the room. Edited by .TUX. (24 May 2018 12.11pm) Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

24 May 18 12.11pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Keep banging that drum Tux!

I will bud as it's the biggest elephant in the room.

Edited by .TUX. (24 May 2018 12.11pm)

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 24 May 18 12.11pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger How can you have contributed when you have just arrived? If immigration is the answer, then why does the NHS appear to be in deeper trouble every year? Or is that just Labour scaremongering around election time? Which way do you want it? Hospitals are full of foreign workers because they can often earn more here than in their own countries where as many British workers were never offered enough pay or encouraged into training. More short sighted government policy. Despite the good work done in hospitals, my experience is that the services provided are often of an abysmal standard. If you are old, you are more likely to die in hospital than out and not necessarily from what you went in with. Too many people and expanding expectations that can never be met. Any amount of tax will never be enough because it will always be spent. And I suggest that anyone calling someone a bigot while hiding being their laptop is a cowardly t***. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (24 May 2018 10.33am) You can't judge a population based on a few examples. The evidence is clear and widely available that as a population immigrants are less of a burden on a per capita basis than those born in the UK. NHS is in trouble because of massive real terms funding cuts! It's clear you don't understand health economics. I'd suggest you shouldn't be immune from being called out for bigotry because you're being a bigot on an online forum.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 24 May 18 12.11pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

How can you have contributed when you have just arrived?
If immigration is the answer, then why does the NHS appear to be in deeper trouble every year? Or is that just Labour scaremongering around election time? Which way do you want it?

Hospitals are full of foreign workers because they can often earn more here than in their own countries where as many British workers were never offered enough pay or encouraged into training. More short sighted government policy.
Despite the good work done in hospitals, my experience is that the services provided are often of an abysmal standard. If you are old, you are more likely to die in hospital than out and not necessarily from what you went in with.
Too many people and expanding expectations that can never be met. Any amount of tax will never be enough because it will always be spent.

And I suggest that anyone calling someone a bigot while hiding being their laptop is a cowardly t***.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (24 May 2018 10.33am)

You can't judge a population based on a few examples. The evidence is clear and widely available that as a population immigrants are less of a burden on a per capita basis than those born in the UK.

NHS is in trouble because of massive real terms funding cuts! It's clear you don't understand health economics.

I'd suggest you shouldn't be immune from being called out for bigotry because you're being a bigot on an online forum.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 24 May 18 12.21pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You can't judge a population based on a few examples. The evidence is clear and widely available that as a population immigrants are less of a burden on a per capita basis than those born in the UK. So what? They are still a net drain not a benefit. They shouldn't be allowed citizenship on anything like the numbers today, nor be able to bring in dependents. If an argument can be made for individuals then that should be done on a select basis. Coming automation in concert with a controlled young working foreigner base who can't stay, that is the best answer to a growing old population. A working foreigner base that are chosen from select criteria. This is the model Japan are using and it's working. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 12.24pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

24 May 18 12.21pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You can't judge a population based on a few examples. The evidence is clear and widely available that as a population immigrants are less of a burden on a per capita basis than those born in the UK.

So what? They are still a net drain not a benefit.

They shouldn't be allowed citizenship on anything like the numbers today, nor be able to bring in dependents. If an argument can be made for individuals then that should be done on a select basis.

Coming automation in concert with a controlled young working foreigner base who can't stay, that is the best answer to a growing old population. A working foreigner base that are chosen from select criteria.

This is the model Japan are using and it's working.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 12.24pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 24 May 18 12.24pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Really? All evidence? This is simply untrue. I find that like your post on 'free speech' yesterday it's not the true picture. I would be interested in where you get this evidence for all immigrants. To get a net benefit you have to select only immigrants from a select number of countries, for example the EU or take from a set number of years and avoid the reality of older immigrants. When you stop cheery picking your evidence base the reality is that immigration to the UK costs the UK tax payer more than it brings in: Fact. Even when you account for the most positive spin. Immigrants get old too and it's a ponzi scheme which is impossible to sustain and anyone with more common sense than ideology can see that. [Link] [Link] [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 10.52am) I should say all reasonable academic evidence, rather than biased rubbish from Migration Watch. This is more a question of when someone ceases to be an immigrant. Maybe we should have stopped anyone coming to the country post 1066. The articles you post point out that native Britons are a net drain over the same period. When you control for factors such as age it's clear that migrants contribute more on a net basis (or are less of a drain). [Link] Interestingly the impact from the so-called "uncontrolled" EU immigration is hugely positive. The "controlled" immigration is negative, largely as many of these are baby boomers who we've discussed on this thread are a burden on society. Due to the profligacy of older people we need more immigrants now to help contribute and provide services. They will obviously in turn retire, but there are little other options. The very people that moan about it the most are the reason for it.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 24 May 18 12.24pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Really? All evidence?

This is simply untrue. I find that like your post on 'free speech' yesterday it's not the true picture.

I would be interested in where you get this evidence for all immigrants.

To get a net benefit you have to select only immigrants from a select number of countries, for example the EU or take from a set number of years and avoid the reality of older immigrants.

When you stop cheery picking your evidence base the reality is that immigration to the UK costs the UK tax payer more than it brings in: Fact. Even when you account for the most positive spin.

Immigrants get old too and it's a ponzi scheme which is impossible to sustain and anyone with more common sense than ideology can see that.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 10.52am)

I should say all reasonable academic evidence, rather than biased rubbish from Migration Watch.

This is more a question of when someone ceases to be an immigrant. Maybe we should have stopped anyone coming to the country post 1066.

The articles you post point out that native Britons are a net drain over the same period.

When you control for factors such as age it's clear that migrants contribute more on a net basis (or are less of a drain).

[Link]

Interestingly the impact from the so-called "uncontrolled" EU immigration is hugely positive. The "controlled" immigration is negative, largely as many of these are baby boomers who we've discussed on this thread are a burden on society. Due to the profligacy of older people we need more immigrants now to help contribute and provide services. They will obviously in turn retire, but there are little other options. The very people that moan about it the most are the reason for it.

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 24 May 18 12.24pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays First things first. I replied to a post that made a claim that wasn't accurate. So when you introduce an argument, as you do in your first paragraph, that it's about the amount of the burden.....well then we are onto different territory. I agree with you that different methodologies will obviously relay different scales. The left took early report claims from the Labour survey study using sliced and diced statistics and made claims that were false pictures of immigration as a whole. All Migration watch did was actually wait for the full study to be released and then relate the actual true picture from statistics from the same study! Not the slicked and diced ones that activists used. It's true that immigration costs us more than it brings in. Like I said, it's bleeding obvious to anyone with common sense. If you are going to allow citizenship to immigrants then they are going to bring in independents. They are going to grow old....Hence all you are doing is providing short term answers and actually just making the problem bigger and worse down the line. This is even when you completely ignore the social cohesion cost and discord that immigration costs. The terror attacks we have to endure. The ghettoization....all of which the left does completely. I state again, the way immigration is practiced in this country is a unsustainable ponzi scheme that creates a bigger and bigger problem. You require a larger and larger young foreign workforce to sustain the older citizen base. It doesn't work and it's a fraud committed on the British people. The sustainable model is the one Japan use. You can work as a foreigner but you can't have citizenship or bring your independents and eventually you have to go back. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 11.49am) Where are the ghettos? Tower Hamlets or Stoke on Trent? Or is it Londonderry, where levels of poverty exceed the previous two even though most immigrants are Irish? There is a big difference between us and Japan which is that in most of the cases of migration in to our country, migrants are coming from areas where we have extended our political authority. In the case of Commonwealth migrants, that means that many of them are actually citizens, coming from countries like Jamaica where they were British subjects before we even took Ireland. In the more modern case of the EU, we were one of the earlier entrants who aggressively pushed for the inclusion of Eastern European and Baltic states. This allowed our banks to push tarriff free loans on them (and allowed us to fly for peanuts and get pissed in Krakow, Split etc). Then when their citizens took advantage of free movement the other way, we took their cheap trade but routinely demonized them using some of the oldest cultural stereotypes in the book. Unless Britain takes some responsibility for our actions abroad we will be condemned to repeat history over and over again. And as im sure you could more eloquently summarise than me, it is the poor on both sides that suffer. If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 24 May 18 12.24pm

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

First things first.

Like I said, it's bleeding obvious to anyone with common sense. If you are going to allow citizenship to immigrants then they are going to bring in independents.

They are going to grow old....Hence all you are doing is providing short term answers and actually just making the problem bigger and worse down the line.

This is even when you completely ignore the social cohesion cost and discord that immigration costs. The terror attacks we have to endure. The ghettoization....all of which the left does completely.

It doesn't work and it's a fraud committed on the British people.

The sustainable model is the one Japan use. You can work as a foreigner but you can't have citizenship or bring your independents and eventually you have to go back.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2018 11.49am)

Where are the ghettos? Tower Hamlets or Stoke on Trent? Or is it Londonderry, where levels of poverty exceed the previous two even though most immigrants are Irish?

There is a big difference between us and Japan which is that in most of the cases of migration in to our country, migrants are coming from areas where we have extended our political authority. In the case of Commonwealth migrants, that means that many of them are actually citizens, coming from countries like Jamaica where they were British subjects before we even took Ireland.

In the more modern case of the EU, we were one of the earlier entrants who aggressively pushed for the inclusion of Eastern European and Baltic states. This allowed our banks to push tarriff free loans on them (and allowed us to fly for peanuts and get pissed in Krakow, Split etc). Then when their citizens took advantage of free movement the other way, we took their cheap trade but routinely demonized them using some of the oldest cultural stereotypes in the book.

Unless Britain takes some responsibility for our actions abroad we will be condemned to repeat history over and over again. And as im sure you could more eloquently summarise than me, it is the poor on both sides that suffer.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 24 May 18 12.39pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Are you suggesting younger people aren't paying in and will not do so all their working lives? For what return? The baby boomers have benefited from innumerable things no longer available to younger generations, wealth (largely held by older people) has continued to grow apace, yet incomes (largely earned by the younger) stagnate. Evidence shows that the baby boomers spent more relative to older generations than the young do now, yet the young are still relatively poorer and cost of living, especially housing, significantly higher. Having paid in is not an argument as everyone will do so, it's just a matter of timing. You can't use that as an excuse to pillage from future generations. The elderly don't have some sort of divine right to resources without the responsibility of replacing them. Let's not overlook that fact that there is a huge number of pensioners who are STILL contributing through tax, so we're not all getting something for nothing! (...and the NHS is funded as much through taxation revenue as from NIC contributions, as has done for very many years, before anyone brings that point up) A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 24 May 18 12.39pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Are you suggesting younger people aren't paying in and will not do so all their working lives? For what return?

The baby boomers have benefited from innumerable things no longer available to younger generations, wealth (largely held by older people) has continued to grow apace, yet incomes (largely earned by the younger) stagnate. Evidence shows that the baby boomers spent more relative to older generations than the young do now, yet the young are still relatively poorer and cost of living, especially housing, significantly higher.

Having paid in is not an argument as everyone will do so, it's just a matter of timing. You can't use that as an excuse to pillage from future generations. The elderly don't have some sort of divine right to resources without the responsibility of replacing them.

Let's not overlook that fact that there is a huge number of pensioners who are STILL contributing through tax, so we're not all getting something for nothing! (...and the NHS is funded as much through taxation revenue as from NIC contributions, as has done for very many years, before anyone brings that point up)

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Stuk Top half 24 May 18 12.41pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You can't judge a population based on a few examples. The evidence is clear and widely available that as a population immigrants are less of a burden on a per capita basis than those born in the UK. NHS is in trouble because of massive real terms funding cuts! It's clear you don't understand health economics. I'd suggest you shouldn't be immune from being called out for bigotry because you're being a bigot on an online forum. Do immigrants stop having children when they come here then? Or are immigrants the ones with the highest birth rates in the UK? Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 24 May 18 12.41pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You can't judge a population based on a few examples. The evidence is clear and widely available that as a population immigrants are less of a burden on a per capita basis than those born in the UK.

NHS is in trouble because of massive real terms funding cuts! It's clear you don't understand health economics.

I'd suggest you shouldn't be immune from being called out for bigotry because you're being a bigot on an online forum.

Do immigrants stop having children when they come here then?

Or are immigrants the ones with the highest birth rates in the UK?

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 24 May 18 12.42pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman We can’t do that. It’s racist or xenophobic, despite most of the world operating that way. The increases needed or treatment to be dropped are no surprise. We could start charging a few people for prescriptions, appointments, missing appointments. You make that sound like it's a bad thing. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 24 May 18 12.42pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

We can’t do that. It’s racist or xenophobic, despite most of the world operating that way.

The increases needed or treatment to be dropped are no surprise.

We could start charging a few people for prescriptions, appointments, missing appointments.

You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 24 May 18 12.43pm
Originally posted by becky Let's not overlook that fact that there is a huge number of pensioners who are STILL contributing through tax, so we're not all getting something for nothing! (...and the NHS is funded as much through taxation revenue as from NIC contributions, as has done for very many years, before anyone brings that point up) No tax on much of their wealth though which is the big problem. That and gold plated pensions, which are being funded by tax and the work of the young. BT etc have to plug their pension deficits by cutting jobs, wages, benefits etc of current staff not the ones who creamed it off the top for years and are now retired. Also any wealth that is taxed is taxed at a significantly lower rate than income.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 24 May 18 12.43pm

Originally posted by becky

No tax on much of their wealth though which is the big problem. That and gold plated pensions, which are being funded by tax and the work of the young. BT etc have to plug their pension deficits by cutting jobs, wages, benefits etc of current staff not the ones who creamed it off the top for years and are now retired.

Also any wealth that is taxed is taxed at a significantly lower rate than income.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Tax rises needed 'to prevent NHS misery'

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors