And how is this not xenophobia?
Very simple really. An economic test is not xenophobic in anyway. If you read back, no where have I said anything about the race or religion or culture of migrants. For an economic test, its irrelevant. it doesnât matter what country you come from. what colour you are either, or what religion you practice, I donât care. itâs immaterial.
Quite a bit of selective quoting going on.
- Some migrants consume more than they contribute.
- Some migrants contribute more than they consume.
The first group should not be allowed in the UK. The second group should. Pure and simpel.
The reason why the Abu Hamzah vs Abrambovich question Iâd like you to answer is because they are extreme examples of the two cases above. Iâm trying to determine if you accept the general premise. If you do then we are down to another quite sensible question, where do you put the threshold.
We can also look at what needs to change to sort out the current mess. I far more difficult question.
I disagree.
The real problem is tax. The state isnât productive, its destructive. You have to look beyond what they tell you to the real state of affairs. That means looking at their debts in total, not just the borrowing. The borrowing is irrelevant as its a small fraction of the debts. The true debt includes pensions.
Unless there is a full accounting for the state, Iâve no doubt you will delude yourself that thereâs a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and only if those awful leprechauns didnât hoard cash, it would be wonderful. Except there isnât a pot of gold. Itâs a myth.
This is not xenophobia because the sky is blue and the leaves are green. (/s :))
1 Like
Taxes on whom, and what kind of problem? Youâve stated before that tax determines investment, which I countered with the fact that potential profit determines investment. As an example, in the US corporate taxes are at historic lows, yet there is less than zero investment in new plant/production and hiring.
As another example, if you produce a product for which demand is growing, you can either increase production by hiring more workers/investing in plant, or you can ignore the increased demand and do nothing. Whether tax rates were 5% or 30%, the increased production will still net you increased profits. Youâd be a fool not to reinvest and increase production based on tax rates.
That is an incredibly broad statement, and smacks more of ideology than reality. The state can be immensely productive, just like industry. If you are referring to the âcrowding outâ thesis, whereby government production impedes private sector production, that could be true if the state were directly competing with private industry. In most instances this is not the case, and in fact, the state helps foster production via industrial and financial policies.
In the US the state was instrumental in fostering the manufacturing booms that made the US the preeminent manufacturing economy to the world for the middle half of the 20th century. In the UK the NHS is massively helpful in providing healthcare to the people at a much more affordable price than the private sector in the US does, where we spend over twice as much on healthcare yet up to a quarter of all Americans donât have access to decent care because of the price. Thatâs an immensely productive state. Other things you claim are destructive that the state helps provide are things like assistance for mothers, education for children, etc. These are things that donât have an exact monetary value for those who have an overweening fetish for profit, yet without them a nation will collapse.
Iâm not sure what youâre driving at here. A nation such as the UK (with a fiat currency) can print the money it needs to pay the pensions it has promised its workers (or it can raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy if it insists on deficit neutrality). The idea that printing money for financial titans to gamble with is a safe activity (asset inflation is a positive) while simultaneously declaring that printing money for pensions is a dangerous activity (potential price inflation is a calamity) is nonsensical, and only serves to shaft the poor while showering the wealthy with capital gains.
So where did all that money come from to bailout the financial sector? I laid out a very specific set of conditions under which price inflation can occur, and your response is not an argument, its a declaration. Fiscal policy and financial/anti-trust reform are essential, and wage/price inflation are distant concerns compared to massive unemployment, wasted resources and underproduction. You need a real argument if you are going to try and counter my position.
1 Like
Lets say you have 1000 to invest. You have a choice of two projects, with the same risk. Both yield 10% before tax.
However, oneâs income related, and in the UK, that can mean 65% tax. The other is property related, and that can mean zero tax. Which one do you invest in?
So whatâs the consequence of that tax distortion? Itâs that people move money into property, and the price rises. Youâve got an asset bubble driven by taxation.
So taxation has a major effect on the example above.
Itâs even worse when risk is thrown into the basket.
Lets say you have 100 lots of 10K to invest into projects. Some are going to fail. You need the winners to give you all the return, and to pay for the losers on top. Otherwise, you will lose money. The tax on winners makes a huge difference to the economics.
So back to what I agree is a major issue, unemployment, resources and under production.
- Giving money the the state doesnât work. If we take the UK, they want to invest 80 bn in a new railway line shaving a few minutes off a train trip. Will the customers pay for it? Will they heck, they are going to tax other people. ie. The users get a massive transfer of assets for something they arenât prepared to pay for.
The state doesnât do investment.
- Itâs worse. If we take the real situation, the UK government has a true debt of 8,000 bn, all up, increaasing at 850 bn a year. Total tax is 600 bn.
So you are going to get more tax, with no services because of the debt. How does that cure the ills? It doesnât. It is the cause, no the solution.
- On the bail out.
They printed it. So look at the accounts. It was lent, and in the UK its pretty much all been repaid. The compensation paid out came from the other banks, not the state.
They have booked at 35 bn profit, because the money was lent at penal rates of interest.
The tax take from the banks has been running at 65-70 bn a year, so the state has taken a whacking cut their, which comes from the customers.
So what was the problem with the banks again?
3 A nation such as the UK (with a fiat currency) can print the money it needs to pay the pensions it has promised its workers
To use a phrase, codswallop. You have to realise that the debts are inflation linked. ie. The state has offered purchasing power, not X pounds. They have in effect agreed to pay a percentage of GDP. Printing causes inflation, which causes the debts to increase.
You cannot print your way out of inflation linked debt.
You can with fixed rate debts. However, once bitten twice shy, the state would find that its funding costs go up after ripping lenders off.
Is it ad hominem to ask if you work for the Daily Mail? Or whether youâre Jeremy Clarkson?
Your statements and arguments jigger about like sozzled 18th century sailors on board the good ship Jingo.
Your absolutism doesnât lend itself to persuasion. Your determinedly limited understanding, or deliberate camouflaging of education in, economics plays perfectly into your audienceâs ability to read with great amusement your musings.
In a certain paradigm, in a certain pocket of understanding, all this might seem to hang together. But out here in the real world, it doesnât. Sorry.
1 Like
But your economic test is only being applied to immigrants. You have specifically excluded native Britons. One rule for natives and another for everyone else practically defines xenophobia.
Yep, it is. I donât work for the Daily Mail.
Whereâs the absolutism?
Iâve offered up a question for you to answer, and youâve avoided it. Iâll ask again.
- Abu Hamzah
- Abromovitch.
1 is bad for the UK, 2 is good. [Unless youâre an Arsenal fan]
Even on the question of absolutism, Iâve asked you to offer up some numbers as to where the line is drawn. You seem unwilling to offer an opinion on which migrants are good for the UK, which arenât. Why is that?
Or we could go at it another way. A list of positives and negatives.
Positives
- Tax. Migrants pay tax.
- High skilled migrants come with skills we as a country didnât have to fund.
Negatives
- If low skilled they drive down wages, leaving people unemployed.
- They consume limited housing leading to scarcity, driving up costs
- Some consume welfare
- They accrue pension rights.
- Migration can have a negative effect on their original country.
- They consume other peopleâs money
- They drag in lots of illegal migrants, who donât pay tax.
ie. For a lot of migrants they arenât good for the UK. For lots of migrants who pay a lot of tax they are good. Thatâs not a Daily Mail opinion which is migrants = bad. Just as yourâs is equally odd. Youâre opinion is migrants = good, and that include Abu Hamzah.
Even Labour take a racist view. Their view is migrants are better than Brits. If the Daily Mail said migrants are crap, donât employ them, Brits are better, you would rightly condemn them for racism. But when Gordon Brown and co do the same, you keep quite. Itâs just as racists.
Thatâs why going on the individual case is the way to go. Objective test, not subjective. Tax paid is an ideal way.
I see it working this way. If you want to come here, your company or you have to get a bond equal to the amount of tax the government spends. 11.5K. (or if you can come up with a good number, Iâm open)
Then at the end of the year, your tax return is checked. Is it over 11.5K. If so a thank you letter. Would be nice for all the other people who fund the state. If not, you have to top up, or you have 3 months to leave.
- Itâs simple.
- Itâs non racist
- It uses an existing mechanism - tax - to make it work.
- If you are on that level, you arenât on welfare. No arguments about migrants taking services.
- Itâs good for the economy.
Where its bad, it deprives the originating country of skills.
I canât read beyond this (this quote feature is beautiful - that was so easy to do, wouldnât you agree?)
1 Like
Xenophobia is the irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange
Since Iâve said quite clearly I welcome foreigners who make a net contribution, that shows no fear of anyone who is foreign.
What I fear is the reaction of the poor of the UK when they discover that their entire pensions have been spent, and there is nothing left for their retirement.
Taking on liabilities of low skilled low paid migrants makes that worse. Thereâs nothing irrational or unreasoned about it.
As for the rules for natives, thatâs in the nature of citizenship. Now you might be arguing against nationality, in which case lay out your case for a free for in migration to the UK, with no rules.
Hereâs an example of reverse racism, if you apply your criteria. Weâve had posts here saying we should welcome migrants because they are better than natives. Look fewer claim benefits.
Why didnât you go after the poster of that accusing them of racism? Or are you applying a double standard?
Iâm a lazy predator, I only go after the weak. And your argument is by far the weakest.
More seriously, those guys are accepting the basis of the argument that you put forward, which is where the xenophobia lies. In dealing with your argument, I deal with theirs.
1 Like
What rule is it in internet debates, the one where when you quote a dictionary definition, you lose? I forget. Anyway, weâve been through all that âX-phobia doesnât mean simple prejudice, not that Iâm prejudiced eitherâ with the homophobes, and they lost that argument soundly.
I say it again, youâre applying one rule to foreigners that youâre not applying to Britons; that is what youâve made clear. Thatâs not on, whether you call it xenophobia, racism, chauvinism, or just plain not liking foreigners. Be consistent, damn all of us who arenât paying ÂŁ11,500 in taxes as well, or abandon this line of argument. By the way, that would be a salary of about ÂŁ40,000 per annum, pre-tax? Do you earn that much? How many wage-earning Britons earn ÂŁ16K above the median, anyway? Less than half, by definition; maybe 30%?
OK. Iâll take the bait.
Which numbers?
What are your versions of the numbers?
This is giberish. Youâre not putting forward any argument.
Let me ask you again.
How is accepting migrants (albeit oneâs that pay lots of tax), xenophobic?
Secondly, you seem to think that refusing low paid migrants who end up on welfare is a good thing. I donât. I think that harms people to whom the state does owe a duty of care. If you are disabled and canât work, we should all help you. From your response, you think that we have to import migrants, and make those people in need of help worse off.
I think that position is immoral.
See my previous post:
Youâre just going in circles.
Iâm not going in circles.
Let me lay out your argument.
Does each additional migrant cost an extra 11.5K? No they donât. There are as you point out fixed overheads such as defense that doesnât change as the population goes up.
Great you say, that means we should apply a lower threshold to migrants.
Ah, but what youâre then saying is that we will admit migrants on the basis they wonât pay those fixed costs. Itâs down to the natives to bear the full cost.
Hmmm, isnât that a tad racist to say migrants get to receive the benefits, but not pay the cost?
By the way, I do accept that the 11.5K is an average. There will be migrants and natives who consume far
What Iâd be interested in is your views on whether you have a flexible threshold, and if so how that would work.
See:
Youâre still bringing up points that Iâve already addressed.
Ok, I havenât said anything yet about who I think should be allowed to immigrate and who shouldnât, and you seem to want very much to have another facet of this debate to disagree with me on, so here goes:
In principle, I am for unrestricted immigration. I think that nearly everybody has something to offer. BUT, before you start getting worked up about that, let me say that I recognize that that really wouldnât work in a first-world country, as the borders would probably be flooded.
So I do have a threshold. But I donât think it should strictly be broken down into those who will contribute some certain amount in taxes and who wonât; there are a lot of other factors. For example, the U.S. probably didnât consider Einsteinâs monetary value when the approved his citizenship.
