|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 14, 2024 11:44:39 GMT
I think we could start by loosing the "attacking immigrants" dialogue because there's only one person in this thread "attacking" immigrants and that's not Zany.
IMO it's a mute point. The point is unsustainable growth if population or at least unsustainable as far as everyone but you thinks and if course you are entitled to that opinion
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 14, 2024 12:20:09 GMT
Don’t you think the anti-immigrant attack dogs have already been loosed — and what makes you think they’re mute…?
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jun 14, 2024 12:27:53 GMT
I am referring to posters not people outside of the thread. In the thread there's not really any anti immigrant attack dogs
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2024 16:37:00 GMT
You seem utterly determined to miss my point. If the British people were asked if they wanted to import millions of Middle East people with the possible 'upside' of grilled meat and bread (as pointed out earlier, something they already had), then they would have said 'no' Everything is a trade-off and nobody wanted that one Well yes its a stupid assumption because they weren't bought here to open kebab shops. If I said I'm buying the weeks shopping to fill the wheelie bin you'd say no!. But then is a stupid idea. The upside of immigration is lower tax as has been discussed endlessly. No. Expanding 'the taxed' by adding more people is only a net benefit if the newcomers are net contributors. Adding non net contributors just expands the state further. This is why filling your country up with kebab vendors isn't the road to success. We went through this before - but you keep insisting 2 + 2 must equal 5 If you want to know the effect large numbers of these people have, just take a look at the countries they comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 14, 2024 16:46:30 GMT
Well yes its a stupid assumption because they weren't bought here to open kebab shops. If I said I'm buying the weeks shopping to fill the wheelie bin you'd say no!. But then is a stupid idea. The upside of immigration is lower tax as has been discussed endlessly. No. Expanding 'the taxed' by adding more people is only a net benefit if the newcomers are net contributors. Adding non net contributors just expands the state further. This is why filling your country up with kebab vendors isn't the road to success. We went through this before - but you keep insisting 2 + 2 must equal 5 If you want to know the effect large numbers of these people have, just take a look at the countries they comes from. Every time we go through this you ignore and reset. Study after study shows migrants contribute to the tax take. You pretending they are all unskilled kebab shop owners doesn't change the facts. FACTS Orac FACTS. Not to mention that kebab shops do a roaring trade and therefore probably pay tax both in employment taxes and profit taxes.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 14, 2024 17:12:26 GMT
Away from Dappy's island, the ONS has a forecasting tool (link above) based on the projection shown below.
The dependency ratio in 2016 was 305 pensioners to 1,000 working population. The tool, before any user adjustment, shows that by 2042 the 305 moves to 367.. By adjusting net migration I estimated that for each 100,000 increase in net migration the dependency rate (305 or 367) decreases by about 6.
The figure required for net migration to maintain the dependency rate at 305 is therefore a change from the starting figure of 165,000 to 1,165,000.
I don't know how the model works, but if it (the 1.165m) is straight substitution for the 165,000 shown in the spreadsheet, to maintain the dependency ratio an additional 18,000,000 would need to be added to the 2042 projection of 73m, a total of 91,000,000. If the model includes a straight line increase in net migration the figure of 18,000,000 is halved to 9,000,000 or a population of 82m. I can't see either figure being sustainable.
If anyone has the time, perhaps they could check my arithmetic.
Thanks for the links to the tool and data. Sorry but I can't find this 1.165m you refer to possibly because I can't get the spreadsheet image to expand to be readable. Interesting though is the tool says set retirement age to be 70 and there's no need for immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 14, 2024 17:33:54 GMT
No. Expanding 'the taxed' by adding more people is only a net benefit if the newcomers are net contributors. Adding non net contributors just expands the state further. This is why filling your country up with kebab vendors isn't the road to success. We went through this before - but you keep insisting 2 + 2 must equal 5 If you want to know the effect large numbers of these people have, just take a look at the countries they comes from. Every time we go through this you ignore and reset. Study after study shows migrants contribute to the tax take. 'Contribute to the tax take' doesn't mean anything - Nor does the category 'immigrants' mean much. We can have one billionaire 'immigrant' who offsets the loses caused by 100,000, but the question still remains why bother with the 100,000? The government keep adding very, very large numbers of near useless immigrants who are not earning enough to be net contributors. So, we come back to my implied question - why is the uk government scooping useless people out of middle east cesspits, so they can convert fish and chip shops into kebab shops?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 14, 2024 17:35:08 GMT
Because they're not. Your ridiculous claims on ME migrants are not supported by any facts
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 14, 2024 18:00:30 GMT
Away from Dappy's island, the ONS has a forecasting tool (link above) based on the projection shown below.
The dependency ratio in 2016 was 305 pensioners to 1,000 working population. The tool, before any user adjustment, shows that by 2042 the 305 moves to 367.. By adjusting net migration I estimated that for each 100,000 increase in net migration the dependency rate (305 or 367) decreases by about 6.
The figure required for net migration to maintain the dependency rate at 305 is therefore a change from the starting figure of 165,000 to 1,165,000.
I don't know how the model works, but if it (the 1.165m) is straight substitution for the 165,000 shown in the spreadsheet, to maintain the dependency ratio an additional 18,000,000 would need to be added to the 2042 projection of 73m, a total of 91,000,000. If the model includes a straight line increase in net migration the figure of 18,000,000 is halved to 9,000,000 or a population of 82m. I can't see either figure being sustainable.
If anyone has the time, perhaps they could check my arithmetic.
Thanks for the links to the tool and data. Sorry but I can't find this 1.165m you refer to possibly because I can't get the spreadsheet image to expand to be readable. Interesting though is the tool says set retirement age to be 70 and there's no need for immigrants. This is a link to the spreadsheet. All I've done is noted that for each change in net immigration of 100,000 the dependency rate changes by around 6. To reduce the increase of around sixty I've estimated 1m more net immigration (60/6*100,000) and added it to the constant figure of 165.000 in the spreadsheet.
Interesting point re retirement age. I wonder if the tool takes into account economic activity in its dependency calculation?
I went back to work at 63 and carried on until 2 months ago at 71, but my maximum physical effort was switching on my laptop and picking up a file. Then again, many jobs are like that these days.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 14, 2024 18:20:02 GMT
The link doesn't work for me, might be it's linking to your local content.
Not everyone can work at 70 but then not everyone is well enough to work at 30 either. That's what we have welfare for.
We could have a public information film: 'Want to retire under 70 and live comfortably then you better save your money then'
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 14, 2024 18:28:21 GMT
The link doesn't work for me, might be it's linking to your local content. Not everyone can work at 70 but then not everyone is well enough to work at 30 either. That's what we have welfare for. We could have a public information film: 'Want to retire under 70 and live comfortably then you better save your money then' A double click on the link should download the spreadsheet from the ONS site.
Not sure that film would be very popular.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 14, 2024 18:29:25 GMT
Every time we go through this you ignore and reset. Study after study shows migrants contribute to the tax take. 'Contribute to the tax take' doesn't mean anything - Nor does the category 'immigrants' mean much. We can have one billionaire 'immigrant' who offsets the loses caused by 100,000, but the question still remains why bother with the 100,000? The government keep adding very, very large numbers of near useless immigrants who are not earning enough to be net contributors.
So, we come back to my implied question - why is the uk government scooping useless people out of middle east cesspits, so they can convert fish and chip shops into kebab shops? Because that is not true.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 14, 2024 18:30:30 GMT
The link doesn't work for me, might be it's linking to your local content. Not everyone can work at 70 but then not everyone is well enough to work at 30 either. That's what we have welfare for. We could have a public information film: 'Want to retire under 70 and live comfortably then you better save your money then' The retire at 70, not needing immigrants only works if you keep age of death the same??
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jun 14, 2024 18:34:05 GMT
The link doesn't work for me, might be it's linking to your local content. Not everyone can work at 70 but then not everyone is well enough to work at 30 either. That's what we have welfare for. We could have a public information film: 'Want to retire under 70 and live comfortably then you better save your money then' The retire at 70, not needing immigrants only works if you keep age of death the same?? Do you think it would change life expectancy?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 14, 2024 18:59:23 GMT
The retire at 70, not needing immigrants only works if you keep age of death the same?? Do you think it would change life expectancy? No, I think retirement age will be dictated by life expectancy. I also think life expectancy will continue to extend.
|
|