Immigration 'small Benefit' To Uk

[Dunroamin]

Absolute bollocks, people with nice houses, cars etc etc generally (but not always!) have them because they work fuckin hard for them !!

Or often work in the finance sector betting other people's money with no risk to themselves, or selling loans to people who can't afford them etc. at the expense of everyone else including those who have generally worked hard to get where they are - like we saw in the Greed Game on BBC2 tonight.

 

..selling loans to people who cannot afford them..."

 

Not very good business for the banks/mortgage lenders but I do agree that it does happen too often but there again why do these borrowers approach the bank/mortgage lender in the first place when they know they cannot afford to repay the loans they are seeking...........?

 

It really is time these people took responsibility for their actions, stopped blaming other people and stopped saying it is all the fault of the lenders that I borrowed money that I cannot afford to repay.

[Albert Tatlock]

Absolute bollocks, people with nice houses, cars etc etc generally (but not always!) have them because they work fuckin hard for them !!

Or often work in the finance sector betting other people's money with no risk to themselves, or selling loans to people who can't afford them etc. at the expense of everyone else including those who have generally worked hard to get where they are - like we saw in the Greed Game on BBC2 tonight.

 

..selling loans to people who cannot afford them..."

 

Not very good business for the banks/mortgage lenders but I do agree that it does happen too often but there again why do these borrowers approach the bank/mortgage lender in the first place when they know they cannot afford to repay the loans they are seeking...........?

 

It really is time these people took responsibility for their actions, stopped blaming other people and stopped saying it is all the fault of the lenders that I borrowed money that I cannot afford to repay.

...or time they brought back the bank manager. It's up to banks to properly assess people's abilty to pay back money - clearly the current 'credit crunch' shows that self regulation does not work and many people who can't afford to pay back loans etc. will go for it, (or fall for/allow fast talking commission-hungry sharks to sell them the loans). Banks/lenders need far more regulation in this respect.

[Albert Tatlock]

From MR: Island needs migrant workers - Cretney

 

(wrt audio clip) An extra £250K for training locals is not much. If it costs £5K a year to put a kid through ordinary school (£250K = 50 kids) - it generally costs much more for decent trade/skills training.

 

Having migrants who take up low paid jobs - who then bring over a wife and a couple of kids, when we have to pay toward schooling, health etc. because the total tax they pay is insufficient, is not always 'economic'. Plus there are other issues such as when some of these kids might not even speak english and thus affect the education of local children in the same class; the tendency for isolated migrant communities to group together in certain areas (less integration); and the tendency for migrant workers to force down the wages of the local lower paid.

 

In other words there are many other issues to take into account other than simple economics. Cretney is just following Gordon Broon's flawed logic and meally-mouthed bullsh1t IMO, seeming to forget the cultural and infrastructural issues that are likely to affect Joe Public as a result. This needs a far more detailed strategy IMO, less we face the same problems faced by the UK.

 

Immigration was the hot topic at the last election, and IMO MHKs ignore it at their (and our) peril.

[Static]

Having migrants who take up low paid jobs - who then bring over a wife and a couple of kids, when we have to pay toward schooling, health etc. because the total tax they pay is insufficient, is not always 'economic'.

 

I'm only going to pick on one bit of your last argument.

 

You suggest that a migrant taking a low paid job here, who has a wife and couple of kids, would be an economic drain because the tax he pays (you've assumed it is a he yourself) would not be enough to cover the cost of schooling, health, ect for his family.

 

Now lets look at a "local" taking the same job. Assuming that they would earn the same, same wife and kids, living in similar housing (actually the local might be lucky and get a corpy house which the migrant isn't allowed to have for 10 years!). If you look at it this way you will see that the "local" is also an economic drain on the system because he also will not pay enough tax to cover the cost of schooling, health, ect for his family.

 

So your argument here is a load of old tosh. All western nations will always require workers at the lower end of the skills/wage scale and you will inevitably find that they take out more than they pay in. That's just a consequence of how our "civilised" states work with their social structures. The rich, (and not so rich) subsidise the very poor.

 

I would agree though that there are a lot more than just economic issues to take into account. But I haven't time to get into that side of these discussions at the moment.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'm only going to pick on one bit of your last argument.

 

You suggest that a migrant taking a low paid job here, who has a wife and couple of kids, would be an economic drain because the tax he pays (you've assumed it is a he yourself) would not be enough to cover the cost of schooling, health, ect for his family.

 

Now lets look at a "local" taking the same job. Assuming that they would earn the same, same wife and kids, living in similar housing (actually the local might be lucky and get a corpy house which the migrant isn't allowed to have for 10 years!). If you look at it this way you will see that the "local" is also an economic drain on the system because he also will not pay enough tax to cover the cost of schooling, health, ect for his family.

 

So your argument here is a load of old tosh. All western nations will always require workers at the lower end of the skills/wage scale and you will inevitably find that they take out more than they pay in. That's just a consequence of how our "civilised" states work with their social structures. The rich, (and not so rich) subsidise the very poor.

 

I would agree though that there are a lot more than just economic issues to take into account. But I haven't time to get into that side of these discussions at the moment.

Locals stay longer, and put more money into the system before and after they bring up kids. Much migrant pay goes back 'home' too, and locals tend to spend theirs here.

[Slim]

Locals stay longer, and put more money into the system before and after they bring up kids. Much migrant pay goes back 'home' too, and locals tend to spend theirs here.

 

My experience of most local families is that their kids stay as long as it takes to get accepted into university, which the population pays for, then they don't come back.

 

We need migrant workers, because we have a large population of retired folks. The document linked at the top looks utter tosh to me. How could they possibly know the benefits without having an immigration free UK to compare?

 

And is it a problem on the island? Do we have large scale unemployment? Do we have a large volume of immigrant workers in public housing? Do we have foriengers in public funded training? I'm not seeing it.

[Albert Tatlock]

We need migrant workers, because we have a large population of retired folks.

We also need to import less retired folks, who haven't paid into the system here and often end up costing a fortune in health and care relatively soon after arriving.

 

The number of pensioners on the island has increased by 100% in number in 5 short years (2001 census v 2006 census), so what's going to happen in 10, 15 or 20 years? The care bills are only going to get higher and higher.

[Slim]

We also need to import less retired folks, who haven't paid into the system here and often end up costing a fortune in health and care relatively soon after arriving.

The number of pensioners on the island has increased by 100% in number in 5 short years (2001 census v 2006 census), so what's going to happen in 10, 15 or 20 years? The care bills are only going to get higher and higher.

 

Sure, we've had this convo before. People are living longer, which is why your 'stop people having babies' argument is bogus. What you going to do about it, stop giving people medicine? It's a problem, a lot of our economics are balanced around the average age of death being a lot lower than it is now, the reality is my generation are going to have to save more or work for longer, simple as.

 

As for attracting retirees, I think your economics re flawed. We get a lot of VAT income from those people, which now we're zero-ten is even more important than it was before. I've yet to see anything that shows that wealthy people retiring here, paying stamp duty on their 500k+ houses, paying vat for their expensive weekly m&s bills, and generally splashing their dosh around is a drain on the economy.

[Hugh Jampton]

Are these the some retirees who complain bitterly that they don't qualify for our Manx pension supplement?

 

Most of these people are escaping the conditions in England (mainly the north) they don't like. In most cases Immigration is something that was a factor. I talk to these people.

[Albert Tatlock]

We also need to import less retired folks, who haven't paid into the system here and often end up costing a fortune in health and care relatively soon after arriving.

The number of pensioners on the island has increased by 100% in number in 5 short years (2001 census v 2006 census), so what's going to happen in 10, 15 or 20 years? The care bills are only going to get higher and higher.

 

Sure, we've had this convo before. People are living longer, which is why your 'stop people having babies' argument is bogus. What you going to do about it, stop giving people medicine? It's a problem, a lot of our economics are balanced around the average age of death being a lot lower than it is now, the reality is my generation are going to have to save more or work for longer, simple as.

 

As for attracting retirees, I think your economics re flawed. We get a lot of VAT income from those people, which now we're zero-ten is even more important than it was before. I've yet to see anything that shows that wealthy people retiring here, paying stamp duty on their 500k+ houses, paying vat for their expensive weekly m&s bills, and generally splashing their dosh around is a drain on the economy.

What's the fascination with growth, from someone who is supposedly out to save the planet and reduce emissions? What does it matter if the population goes down to 50,000 or stays at 80,000 over a few generations? You want to have a look at 'ratios' on somewhere like the BBC learning zone website and think about it a little more before you slag off population reduction strategies (over a few generations) and think about how it could be achieved - and what the benefits would be.

 

On your VAT 'logic' we should be attracting 500,000 pensioners to live here and then we could all retire.

 

...and what happens if a major employment sector goes tits up in a few years e.g. finance. Finance is fickle and can go as soon as arrive in any area, never mind for the tax recovery pressures likely to eminate from the EU over the next decade. Too many people here only think in the short term, spend all the money when times look good (more often wasting millions) and don't think of the consequences of an ill thought out immigration policy.

[Slim]

What's the fascination with growth, from someone who is supposedly out to save the planet and reduce emissions? What does it matter if the population goes down to 50,000 or stays at 80,000 over a few generations? You want to have a look at 'ratios' on somewhere like the BBC learning zone website and think about it a little more before you slag off population reduction strategies (over a few generations) and think about how it could be achieved - and what the benefits would be.

 

I'm not fascinated with growth, I've not really mentioned growth at all, more maintaining the status quo. Besides, this wasn't an environmental discussion

 

On your VAT 'logic' we should be attracting 500,000 pensioners to live here and then we could all retire.

 

Nope, we'd all die with nobody to flip our burgers in mcd's.

 

...and what happens if a major employment sector goes tits up in a few years e.g. finance. Finance is fickle and can go as soon as arrive in any area, never mind for the tax recovery pressures likely to eminate from the EU over the next decade. Too many people here only think in the short term, spend all the money when times look good (more often wasting millions) and don't think of the consequences of an ill thought out immigration policy.

 

I'd like some examples of financial fickleness? I see it raised a fair bit, but I've yet to see any economic wastelands from a migratory finance sectory anywhere in the world. EU tax recovery is a challenge, but only that, it's not the end of the world in a healthy competitive international market. With VAT, we've profed we're far better set to weather the current barrage than other nearby islands.

 

But if the jobs do go, then with free(ish) borders, the migratory workforce will bugger off with the jobs, some of that's happening already.

[Albert Tatlock]

On your VAT 'logic' we should be attracting 500,000 pensioners to live here and then we could all retire.

 

Nope, we'd all die with nobody to flip our burgers in mcd's.

 

Though we'd get served in B&Q quicker.

[triskelion]

Having lived in Australia I cannot possibly see why people would rather live there than the UK, except maybe (maybe) the weather.

Depends where you are - Melbourne has a lot going for it. Among other reasons are fact you don't have miserable pommies always taking about their property speculations and being careworn, no Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, NuLabour and Nanny statism, there is vastly better customer service without call centre hell that can drive one insane, better banking systems, people generally leave the office at 5pm rather than work silly hours, restaurants are generally better, streets are safer....

 

IMO NZ can have even more advantages - no capital gains tax, easy hop to (other) Pacific Islands, low corruption, high protection of civil liberties and human rights, a govt that is not in pocket of Bush, no 'war on terror' to speak of (apart from French blowing up Greenpeace ships), 70% of energy from renewables, fantastic outdoors in easy reach of city, low cost of living, virtually no homeless and scammers mithering on the streets, and high social capital.

 

Simple subjective assessment is people are generally happier and less stressed and uptight. Reasons enough?

Melbourne was where I lived whilst I was out there, and it is of course a fantastic city, but there are still a l.ot of not so desirable things about the country. Firstly, you have to drive everywhere, as you most likely live in the vast sprawling suburbs. EVeryone drives big cars and you don't share (or so it seemed). There are posters everywhere encouraging you to report any suspicious activity. Most things are centred in the state capitals, between which it is practical only to fly. John Howards/Kevin Rudd > Thatcher/Blair? I don't think so. The Australian Labour Party is still under the kosh of the unions, who remain scarily powerful. Water management is terrible. Streets CAN be safer. You wouldn't want to do much walking around Cronella or Redfern in Sydney. Like anywhere, it depends where you are walking. Restaurants might arguably be better, but everywhere closes by nine, and getting something to eat during the day usually means going to fast food chain or getting something that has spent 3 hours under lights. Society is heavily-male orientated. No national health service (calling out an ambulance will set you back $800AUS). Their supermarkets are rubbish. Obviously nowhere is perfect, but I don't see how people think Australia is CLEARLY better than Britain as a place to live.

[Skeddan]

Yep John Howard was a -ve, but IMO better than Blair. Have to say Auckland and NZ is better. not so male orientated, NHS, decent supermarkets, decent politics (not in Iraq) better restaurants, great walking, better race relations (Aborigines didn't get a treaty unlike Maori) etc. Downside is it is so small (4m total with only 1m in AKL) - but still 50 times bigger than IoM. Wouldn't say even NZ is CLEARLY better even so - doesn't have vicinity to Europe, same museums, art galleries, libraries, history, architecture, career opportunities, or possibility of buying a peerage.

[manxblue]

I can't see what the fuss is about. People move from country to country, that's been happening for a long time.

 

I moved to the Isle of Man because I wanted to live here and raise my daughter here because I love the Isle of Man and feel very lucky to be here.

 

I am an immigrant.

 

I have a sister who was born in the Isle of Man who now lives and works in New Zealand.

 

I have a sister who was born in the Isle of Man and now lives and works in England.

 

I have a sister who was born in the Isle of Man who now lives and works in San Francisco.

 

I have a brother who spent a large part of his life in the Isle of Man who now lives and works in New Zealand.

 

I have a brother who was born in the Isle of Man who still lives and works here.

 

I have a sister who was born in Scotland but grew up in the Isle of Man since she was 3 (she is now 34) and still lives and works here. Along with her 9 year old daughter, who was also born here, and who's Dad is English.

 

I have two grand-parents who lived in the Isle of Man for many years (Both born in England) and are buried in Bride Cemetary.

 

My mother lives in the Isle of Man. She was born in England. She married an Englishman, who has spent most of his life in the Isle of Man.

 

My Grandmother (on my Dad's side) lives in Dunfermline in Scotland. A new housing estate was built two years ago across the road from her. 65% of the houses were bought "off-plan" by Immigrants - that is to say non-Scots ! !). One couple are Manx.

 

Well, that's about all I have to say on the issue, right or wrong, thanks for reading.