|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 12, 2024 19:25:09 GMT
Maths error mate. (easily done) UK population 70,000,000 divided by 30 equals 2,333,333 immigrants Yeah shocking maths on my part Naah I do it all the time with all those zero's. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 12, 2024 19:40:34 GMT
Just to put the 1 in 30 number into context, roughly 2 in 30 people who lived here five years ago are now dead, roughly 2 in 30 living here now weren’t born and about 0.3 in 30 of people living here five years ago now live overseas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 12, 2024 19:45:34 GMT
Just to put the 1 in 30 number into context, roughly 2 in 30 people who lived here five years ago are now dead, roughly 2 in 30 living here now weren’t born and about 0.3 in 30 of people living here five years ago now live overseas. I think its a good way of hammering home just how big immigration has become. Doesn't change the actual numbers, just hammers it home. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 12, 2024 20:10:37 GMT
No doubt Farage is very effective at spinning his story.
If he wanted to portray the other route ( he would no doubt say if his numbers are right) of the current population living here over 91% were living here five years ago and another 6% have been born in those five years. Just 3% are due to immigration which you hear so much about. By the way about 6% living here five years ago have since sadly died and over 1% now live abroad.
Lies damn lies and statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 12, 2024 20:28:44 GMT
However it's presented, there's no getting away from the fact that any increase in population is down to net immigration. When public services are stretched and failing and housing is becoming increasingly expensive, it's hardly surprising that people are concerned about immigration.
The only way I can see it reducing is by improvements in productivity and that's not foing to happen without investment. Hopefully, when this bunch of chancers are shown the door, potential investors will see the UK market as a more stable place to invest and we won't have the need to increase the population further.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 13, 2024 0:43:06 GMT
The working population is relatively static and only then because of immigration. The population increase is largely a result of more retired people and of course because they tend to require more healthcare and have inefficient housing use that is putting pressure on services. It could well be argued that without immigrants doing the work and paying the tax, we would be in a far worse situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 13, 2024 8:01:23 GMT
Populations don't increase because people retire. If the change in mix between the retired population and the working population changes toward a higher proportion of retirees, then an increase in value added to the economy is required to pay for the drop in output from retirement and, as you say, the increased call on public services and housing from the retiree shift.
The most efficient way to achieve this is through improved productivity (increased public revenue without additional call on services and housing). Over the last,. roughly, 20 years our productivity has barely increased and we have relied on immigration to plug the revenue gap. It should be obvious that this is unsustainable and improved productivity should be preferred over immigration. In my opinion, productivity impovements will not follow without investment. Again in my opinion, the political chaos of the last ten years or so has acted to discourage investment.
I suppose it is a little ironic that the age group who complain most about immigration (my lot), or so it seems to me, are those whose standard of living and wealth are propped up by immigration.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by Steve on Jun 13, 2024 8:12:07 GMT
Yep but those immigrants gain citizenship and then become even more retired people that on our current model need more immigrants to support them. We are running a Ponzi scheme.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 8:51:28 GMT
The working population is relatively static and only then because of immigration. The population increase is largely a result of more retired people and of course because they tend to require more healthcare and have inefficient housing use that is putting pressure on services. It could well be argued that without immigrants doing the work and paying the tax, we would be in a far worse situation. Those are the issues. Is the only solution ever more people. Lets not forget that while it would cost more tax per person to slow immigration, a fair percentage of the tax gained is then needed for servicing those new residents. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 9:04:26 GMT
Populations don't increase because people retire. If the change in mix between the retired population and the working population changes toward a higher proportion of retirees, then an increase in value added to the economy is required to pay for the drop in output from retirement and, as you say, the increased call on public services and housing from the retiree shift.
The most efficient way to achieve this is through improved productivity (increased public revenue without additional call on services and housing). Over the last,. roughly, 20 years our productivity has barely increased and we have relied on immigration to plug the revenue gap. It should be obvious that this is unsustainable and improved productivity should be preferred over immigration. In my opinion, productivity impovements will not follow without investment. Again in my opinion, the political chaos of the last ten years or so has acted to discourage investment.
I suppose it is a little ironic that the age group who complain most about immigration (my lot), or so it seems to me, are those whose standard of living and wealth are propped up by immigration.
When you say the most efficient way is through improved productivity, do you suppose we aren't striving for improved productivity? You make it sound like we haven't bothered? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 13, 2024 9:11:08 GMT
The working population is relatively static and only then because of immigration. The population increase is largely a result of more retired people and of course because they tend to require more healthcare and have inefficient housing use that is putting pressure on services. It could well be argued that without immigrants doing the work and paying the tax, we would be in a far worse situation. Those are the issues. Is the only solution ever more people. but interestingly, not ever more people everywhere, just ever more people specifically in our territory |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 9:18:31 GMT
Those are the issues. Is the only solution ever more people. but interestingly, not ever more people everywhere, just ever more people specifically in our territory Good point. What solution is Sudan using? Maybe we could emulate their economy? |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 13, 2024 9:18:40 GMT
Populations don't increase because people retire. If the change in mix between the retired population and the working population changes toward a higher proportion of retirees, then an increase in value added to the economy is required to pay for the drop in output from retirement and, as you say, the increased call on public services and housing from the retiree shift.
The most efficient way to achieve this is through improved productivity (increased public revenue without additional call on services and housing). Over the last,. roughly, 20 years our productivity has barely increased and we have relied on immigration to plug the revenue gap. It should be obvious that this is unsustainable and improved productivity should be preferred over immigration. In my opinion, productivity impovements will not follow without investment. Again in my opinion, the political chaos of the last ten years or so has acted to discourage investment.
I suppose it is a little ironic that the age group who complain most about immigration (my lot), or so it seems to me, are those whose standard of living and wealth are propped up by immigration.
When you say the most efficient way is through improved productivity, do you suppose we aren't striving for improved productivity? You make it sound like we haven't bothered? The point I was trying to make was that without increased business investment, productivity improvements will not happen. I am suggesting that the last, at least, ten years of political chaos has discouraged investment. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 13, 2024 9:23:26 GMT
When you say the most efficient way is through improved productivity, do you suppose we aren't striving for improved productivity? You make it sound like we haven't bothered? The point I was trying to make was that without increased business investment, productivity improvements will not happen. I am suggesting that the last, at least, ten years of political chaos has discouraged investment. We know Brexit discouraged investment. What else do you think stops it? I don't believe its taxation, most investors are looking to get better interest rate returns than they can in the markets. So with interest rates at all time lows getting 10% on your investment is very tempting. But the thing putting investors off is the risk of failure which is high in the UK because of poor management by government. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 13, 2024 9:29:32 GMT
but interestingly, not ever more people everywhere, just ever more people specifically in our territory Good point. What solution is Sudan using? Maybe we could emulate their economy? A solution to allow the state to expand with a population that is steady or marginally reducing? I'm not sure they are applying one - |
|
