Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom > London
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Am I politicly extreme?
Yes 3 18.75%
No 11 68.75%
Maybe 2 12.50%
Unsure 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2014, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
18,438 posts, read 18,555,174 times
Reputation: 28480

Advertisements

I NHS is harmed by immigration.. these people havent paid a penny into the NHS care but expect and get all they need when they arrive... the National Health is struggling as it is without this....Why have we worked and paid through our wages for years to cover health care when others can have it free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2014, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Portsmouth, UK/Swanage, UK
2,174 posts, read 2,566,385 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint View Post
I NHS is harmed by immigration.. these people havent paid a penny into the NHS care but expect and get all they need when they arrive... the National Health is struggling as it is without this....Why have we worked and paid through our wages for years to cover health care when others can have it free.
Absolutely correct!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 12:23 PM
 
994 posts, read 1,231,546 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas182 View Post
1. It all adds to the NHS bills, the NHS has to pay more and more to cater for the increasing population.
2. The NHS isn't prepared for a fast increasing population
3. The Government can't afford to keep up with an ever increasing population, this means more cuts have to be made in order to allow the immigrants to use the NHS, after a while the government will have to make the drastic decision to privatise the NHS as they and the tax payer can't afford it.
Think of the NHS as a ship, if a ship is top heavy then it will sink. This will happen to the NHS because it cant keep up with the demands of a massively growing population...

What makes you believe the NHS won't struggle with mass immigration?
Did you read my quotation from the Oxford Migration Observatory? You don't seem to have done...

Let's put it the other way round. If 25% of the population of the United Kingdom left tomorrow, what would be the effect on public services like the NHS? Would they dramatically improve, because of having to be shared between fewer people?

Also, what would be the effect on unemployment if the population of the country were suddenly to fall? We currently have unemployment of around 7%; if 7% of the population left, would we have full employment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,139 posts, read 29,453,523 times
Reputation: 8819
Public services are struggling to cope because we are ill-prepared for the population growth that we have experienced. Successive British governments have been plagued by short-term thinking rather than long-term planning for the future. The UK can easily accommodate many more people than it currently does with appropriate and sensible planning - just look at Japan or the Netherlands. Only 13% of the UK's land is actually developed - but a lot of it is developed inefficiently. We are a nation obsessed with owning a pretty house and garden.

Public services need people to fund them. Less people = less money for these vital services that we take advantage of - unless you increase taxes. Once immigrants arrive, they pay into the system like everyone else. Unless you suggest that they should only be allowed to use the NHS after several years residency, then there is nothing you can do about it. From the day we are born, we are entitled to free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare, regardless of how long we have been paying into the system.

All these NHS scare stories that have surfaced in the media over the past few years are incredibly misleading. The NHS is one of the most efficient and well-run healthcare services in the world.

Last edited by dunno what to put here; 08-30-2014 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Portsmouth, UK/Swanage, UK
2,174 posts, read 2,566,385 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
Let's put it the other way round. If 25% of the population of the United Kingdom left tomorrow, what would be the effect on public services like the NHS? Would they dramatically improve, because of having to be shared between fewer people?
Dude, I'm not talking about reducing the population by 25%! I'm talking about reducing net migration!

Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
Also, what would be the effect on unemployment if the population of the country were suddenly to fall? We currently have unemployment of around 7%; if 7% of the population left, would we have full employment?
Still not my point!
But I tell you this, one Key point that the Migration Observatory states is: "migrants who are young, skilled and doing highly-paid jobs are likely to make a more positive net fiscal contribution than those with low skills and low labour market participation rates."
So basically the more skilled an immigrant is the more beneficial the immigrant is to the country. For example, a doctor of science is positive for the country because one will help to boast British Science, while also introducing new experience, new thought and understanding to Britain's science and economy. However, sorry, who needs a cleaner from a foreign country, when we have plenty people with the same expertize here in the UK? Most people can do a cleaning job! Therefore, basic jobs should be there to entice most of that 7% unemployed into starting the building blocs of work, or ensuring one is put back into employment. So, rather allowing immigration take unskilled jobs, why not try to encourage the many permanently and able unemployed people into those jobs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
Did you read my quotation from the Oxford Migration Observatory? You don't seem to have done...
The Oxford Migration Observatory study ignores GDP per capita. With Britain's mass Immigration, the unskilled foreign worker is more likely to be employed for less wages, however, the British citizen with the same job qualifications losses out and remained unemployed. While more people does seem to help boast the economy of the country at the moment, it seems to make ones personal economy worse. All that time that one is unemployed means less money in their pockets, also the immigrant will have less money in ones pocket than the British worker. As a result, this means Britain is poorer and the only people that are benefiting is the immigrant (who's likely here for a better life) and the people with money - but the majority of people are having to compete with unskilled immigrants.

Some facts:
  • Australia:
    6th biggest country in the world and a green space about the size of western Europe.
    Has a nice population of around 24 million people.
    Australia's total GDP normal is 12th in the world.
    Australia's GDP per capita (normal) is 6th in the world.
  • UK:
    80th biggest country in the world.
    Has a rather overpopulated (for an Island) figure of around 64 million.
    UK's total GDP normal is 6th in the world.
    UK's GDP per capita (normal) is 21st in the world (Witch is rather poor for western standards...)
What I'm trying to say is, overpopulation doesn't help a country. Australia has a manageable population, and therefor, individuals are more well off. However, the UK's population is unmanageable meaning that personal wealth is pretty poor, for western standards.

This leads me to question: What do you prefer? Better Quality of life or a Better overall economy?


Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
If 25% of the population of the United Kingdom left tomorrow
On that note, if the current population suddenly decreased by 25% then the country would have some massive problems for the short-term future. But long-term, a population of 48 million would be more manageable for an island nation, and it would take off pressure on the housing crisis. People would have more space and opportunities... That's what I think

Last edited by Jas182; 08-30-2014 at 02:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,233,569 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas182 View Post
Fairs, Your world does sound good in theory, but can't see a global economic system happening in practice any time soon. Guess we have to agree to disagree.
Really? What is the EU if not a global economic system? Who do countries trade with, are they not foreign countries? Where did the UK manufacturing industries go to, was there any change in the available products they made (other than brands)?

The global economy is here now, and its effects are being felt everywhere, Apple makes an iPhone in China for $40 per unit, it's bought by a customer in the US for $700 or the UK for 550 GBP, the international sales profits Apple makes remains outside the US (so it's not liable for US corporate taxation on profit repatriation) and is transferred around to Apple subsidiaries in countries with the lowest corporate tax rates or to banks in tax havens, the profits from the US can be used in the US or outside the US. That's just Apple, every major consumer brand does the same, Sony a Japanese company manufactures most of it's products at FoxConn in China (who also make the iPhone, iPad, Kindle, PS4, Microsoft's Xbox, and Wii U and many other hi tech branded products) because it's cheaper to manufacture in China, with only a few flagship products still manufactured in Japan.

While people migration to employment has remained low, employment migration to people has exploded over the past 15-20 years and it happened even earlier than that in the UK (70's and 80's) where manufacturing left the UK and moved to other countries (predominantly the far east). Why pay an assembly worker in the UK 10 pounds per hour, when you can pay a Chinese worker 10 pounds per day (or less) and achieve the same result? Offshoring was the buzzword 10 years ago, you should learn about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here View Post
Public services need people to fund them. Less people = less money for these vital services that we take advantage of - unless you increase taxes. Once immigrants arrive, they pay into the system like everyone else. Unless you suggest that they should only be allowed to use the NHS after several years residency, then there is nothing you can do about it. From the day we are born, we are entitled to free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare, regardless of how long we have been paying into the system.
Agreed, and increasing taxes results in diminishing returns (as people and companies leave for countries with lower tax burdens). To correct the posters ship analogy, the UK is the ship, the NHS is the flag on the top mast, the hull, engine room and decks are the people. Without the people (the hull engine room and decks) the flag is residing in Davy Jones Locker.

The NHS is an end product of the summation of the UK economy, which all starts with people making some income from employment, that they can then spend for goods and services, which is then itself taxed (both through VAT, and taxes paid by the goods or services provider). The more people, and more employment the more revenue is generated to be taxed, therefore the more revenue is taken in taxes that can be spent on public services. While we may not agree on what are essential services, nor on what would be considered fair tax levels, the overall principle cannot be denied. More people is the easiest way to generate more tax revenues.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Portsmouth, UK/Swanage, UK
2,174 posts, read 2,566,385 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here View Post
The NHS is one of the most efficient and well-run healthcare services in the world.
I disagree!
My Ant had to wait months for an operation, whereas in America the waiting time would be weeks.
A family friend of ours, has type 1 diabetes, he had to wait two hours in his own pi*s (there's many other horror stories from him to!)
I had to have a tooth operation, waited for 6 hours to find the the person operating on me had not turned up to work! I left with drugs in me, and without a tooth out!

You call the above sufficient? Well that's what the NHS in England is like these days!

Yes, the NHS is the best thing that Labour, or any government, has ever done. But it's not as good as it was when it first started! The NHS on the most part has become overstretched because of overpopulation! However, again, I'm not saying immigration is a bad thing, as many of our doctors are foreign. But I believe that mass immigration isn't helping the NHS one bit!

Last edited by Jas182; 08-30-2014 at 03:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Portsmouth, UK/Swanage, UK
2,174 posts, read 2,566,385 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Really? What is the EU if not a global economic system? Who do countries trade with, are they not foreign countries? Where did the UK manufacturing industries go to, was there any change in the available products they made (other than brands)?

I was replying to what George & Bill said: "I believe in everyone's fundamental right of freedom of movement"
So he was saying about a whole wide world economic system witch would allow freedom of movement everywhere in the world. Other than on a continent such as the European EU, That doesn't happen worldwide yet. I mean, I couldn't see that happening on a worldwide scale. For example, would Americans feel happy with the whole world and his dog decided to move to America?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
More people is the easiest way to generate more tax revenues.
Yes, true more people may mean more tax... But more people = more poverty (or at least in already highly populated areas).
Whereas surely: Less people = more work opportunities = more money per person = even more tax because people are wealthier. What do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 11:23 AM
 
994 posts, read 1,231,546 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jas182 View Post
more people may mean more tax... But more people = more poverty (or at least in already highly populated areas).
Whereas surely: Less people = more work opportunities = more money per person = even more tax because people are wealthier. What do you think?
I think you have misunderstood basic economics. Fewer people does not mean more work opportunities. If the population falls, economic activity also falls, and work opportunities fall accordingly, because work is something that is generated by human activity, not a naturally occurring, fixed resource. If the population grows, there is more economic activity, and more jobs are created. For example, Belgium, the UK, and the US all have around the same unemployment rate, in spite of their widely varying population sizes and densities. The Netherlands and Japan are two of the world's most densely populated countries, and two of its most prosperous. Russia, meanwhile, is a country with tons of spare land but very poor standards of living. Argentina is another very large country with a small population for its size, but fairly low GDP per capita any many deep economic problems.

I give you these example not to try and say that low population density is necessarily a bad thing - but to demonstrate that population density doesn't tend to play a strong role either way in a country's prosperity.

Leaving aside ethical considerations, the best way to increase prosperity would be to get rid of the least economically active people - the single most effective way to do this would be to kill or deport all retired people. Retired people cost a huge amount in pensions and healthcare, but do not generate any tax revenue.

Given that doing this would be a) deeply wrong and b) cause Britain to be cast out of the international community, the main means we have of increasing the proportion we have of economically active people to economically inactive ones, is to try to increase the number of the former - whether by getting those among the latter who are of working age into work (but this can be hard and cost money), or producing more babies (but these take at least 18 years to become economic contributors) or, by letting in economically active immigrants. And on average, the immigrants who come here are more economically active than the average native-born person, not because the natives are lazier, but because they are older.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Portsmouth, UK/Swanage, UK
2,174 posts, read 2,566,385 times
Reputation: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
I think you have misunderstood basic economics. Fewer people does not mean more work opportunities. If the population falls, economic activity also falls, and work opportunities fall accordingly, because work is something that is generated by human activity, not a naturally occurring, fixed resource. If the population grows, there is more economic activity, and more jobs are created. For example, Belgium, the UK, and the US all have around the same unemployment rate, in spite of their widely varying population sizes and densities. The Netherlands and Japan are two of the world's most densely populated countries, and two of its most prosperous. Russia, meanwhile, is a country with tons of spare land but very poor standards of living. Argentina is another very large country with a small population for its size, but fairly low GDP per capita any many deep economic problems.
Yes but Australia and NZ all have low population for the land size and they have higher GDP per capita than the UK...

Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
Leaving aside ethical considerations, the best way to increase prosperity would be to get rid of the least economically active people - the single most effective way to do this would be to kill or deport all retired people. Retired people cost a huge amount in pensions and healthcare, but do not generate any tax revenue..
I'd definitely emigrate from Britain if that happened! Disagree with violence of any kind!

Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
the main means we have of increasing the proportion we have of economically active people to economically inactive ones, is to try to increase the number of the former )
Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
whether by getting those among the latter who are of working age into work (but this can be hard and cost money)
Do, you mean putting native born people into work here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by George & Bill View Post
or producing more babies (but these take at least 18 years to become economic contributors) or, by letting in economically active immigrants. And on average, the immigrants who come here are more economically active than the average native-born person, not because the natives are lazier, but because they are older.
To be fair, Britain does seem to have an older population. However, at the moment I truly believe that the government should reduce that 7% unemployment rate, by encouraging them and reducing immigration. I've course, with an older population there will become a time when, maybe, more people living in the UK are retired rather than working. That is something that will have to be sorted out on a latter date.
But back to my original point. We have a housing crisis, and people living close to the countryside are sickened by the fact that the beautiful green land around them is starting to disappear. What you are saying makes absolute sense, but I'd personally put quality of life, beauty and wildlife over the economy. Your welcome to disagree, but that's how I feel...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > United Kingdom > London

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top