Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
PB Leave redux "Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party. Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
Cameron and the Remainiacs have obviously decided to go for broke and go big on the Big Lie. The £4,300 number, which has been torn apart in various fact checks is clearly untrue. Yet it is now on every advert and billboard. Perhaps, when combined with the taxpayer bung, it will be enougj for Cameron to win. But it will trash his legacy and he will go down as much a dishonest shuckster as Blair and 45 minutes.
"Migrants from Eastern Europe also have high rates of employment but they have lower wages and higher rates of benefit claim than those born in the UK. " http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/367
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
How much tax does a minimum wage potato picker pay ?
How do you know they're taking out less than they put in ?
Are they not eligible for benefits, do their kids not use the local schools, are they banned from using the NHS ?
As to their proportion of the workforce which part of the country has the highest percentage of Eastern European immigrants ?
Boston.
' Park primary demonstrates that demographic change: 62% of pupils at the school are from migrant backgrounds, overwhelmingly from eastern Europe. A recent Ofsted report, largely positive about the efforts being made in the face of obvious adversity, noted that almost all on arrival are at an early stage of learning English: no wonder the parking sign outside is translated into five languages. '
PB Leave redux "Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party. Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
There are heaps of people who have come to London with their families and are drawing £20k-£30k a year in social welfare, using schools, GPs, midwifery and helping to push up rents and push down wages.
PB Leave redux "Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party. Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
Who on here has talked about classical illusions? Only you since 10.33am.
PB Leave redux "Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party. Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
Serious question: Is Boris against Turks coming to the EU ?
Andrew showing his BBC credentials all impartiality gone. What a shame, he's actually gone red in the face with anger and frustration. I will never trust his impartiality again.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
How much tax does a minimum wage potato picker pay ?
How do you know they're taking out less than they put in ?
Are they not eligible for benefits, do their kids not use the local schools, are they banned from using the NHS ?
As to their proportion of the workforce which part of the country has the highest percentage of Eastern European immigrants ?
Boston.
' Park primary demonstrates that demographic change: 62% of pupils at the school are from migrant backgrounds, overwhelmingly from eastern Europe. A recent Ofsted report, largely positive about the efforts being made in the face of obvious adversity, noted that almost all on arrival are at an early stage of learning English: no wonder the parking sign outside is translated into five languages. '
Nope they are not banned from using the NHS or any other public service. The issue is whether they use them. Some will, as is the case with the Boston example you cite, many others won't. That's why you have to look at the overall picture. And that indicates that the average EU immigrant - young, fit, single and mobile - pays in more than he/she takes out.
I must have missed all the Tory PBers calling the Chancellor "Osbrown" during the general election ..... Funny that ....
That was before he got crap.... If he had put forward the various policy positions as his own, rather than the exact opposite then having to do the U-turn, he would be in a much better position. But he has not had a good year. And then there are the dozens of MPs holding an IOU from him for a job. They're going to be unhappy campers when they realise they are worthless...
Ozzie has suddenly got "crap" is laughable.
REMAIN have made many ridiculous comments too but the ability of some Tories to turn on their own because they are desperate for LEAVE to win is so chuckle inducing as to give hyperbole and opportunism a good name.
Cameron and the Remainiacs have obviously decided to go for broke and go big on the Big Lie. The £4,300 number, which has been torn apart in various fact checks is clearly untrue. Yet it is now on every advert and billboard. Perhaps, when combined with the taxpayer bung, it will be enougj for Cameron to win. But it will trash his legacy and he will go down as much a dishonest shuckster as Blair and 45 minutes.
Indeed. Remain are going big on the UK's ability to reform the EU. There are going to be some very tricky questions in the coming decade when the EU fails to reform in a way that will benefit the UK.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
I understand. You want higher taxes and lower public spending.
I'm disappointed that you wilfully misrepresented me.
I want immigrants to come here that contribute to our economy, pretending that they all do is simply untrue.
EU immigrants do contribute more than they take out. Strict post-Brexit immigration controls will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending.
You keep saying that, Mr. Observer, but you do not provide sources to back up your assertion. Some undoubtedly do positively contribute and are net taxpayers, but I doubt that they all are (the Romanian bloke who is bused into Hurstpierpoint from Brighton to sell the Big Issue outside our village Co-op, for one).
As a side note might I suggest that public spending is not of itself an unalloyed good - it depends on what the money is being spent on. Secondly, as you and I have discussed on here before, higher taxes may not always be unacceptable (we have, I think, agreed in the past that we would both be prepared to pay higher taxes in order to achieve socially worthwhile aims).
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. One of them, Miguel, gets in a car accident and needs several operations and a month in hospital. He probably erodes all the taxes paid by his nine mates on minimum wage. The thing about healthcare is that there's a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
More EU immigrants contributing more than they take out:
' BBC Inside Out reporter Kate Bradbrook travelled from Rotherham to Slovakia to meet the people desperate to move to Yorkshire, to escape grinding poverty and overcrowded conditions in their home country.
Among the terraced streets and suburban sprawl of Ferham, a suburb of Rotherham, there is a growing population of Roma Slovak migrants.
It is a similar picture in the Page Hall area of Sheffield, and in Hexthorpe just outside Doncaster.
Many adapt well to their new home, but others - according to residents -bring with them behaviours which are often unacceptable to their neighbours.
Making noise late at night as they gather "socially" on the streets after dark, and leaving piles of litter on the pavements are two common complaints. '
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. One of them, Miguel, gets in a car accident and needs several operations and a month in hospital. He probably erodes all the taxes paid by his nine mates on minimum wage. The thing about healthcare is that there's a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
But the ratio isn't 1-in-10. People between 20 and 40, who are in work, contribute to the government coffers.
More evidence of all that net tax contribution from 2012:
' Rotherham council says it has 43 Roma children in care or on child protection plans - far higher than the national average - and it is not just in Rotherham where this is happening, either.
BBC Radio 4's The Report programme has discovered how several local authorities across the UK are seeing a rise in Roma families coming into contact with social services.
Just how many families they are engaging with is unclear, not least because Britain's family courts are highly secretive for protection reasons.
Local authorities such as Rotherham and Sheffield report a rising number of Roma parents with child protection plans, or even having their children taken into care. The Department for Education says the number of children in care who they categorise as Gypsy/Roma has quadrupled since 2009.
"The issues we've had with Roma families have been around poor school attendance, physical chastisement of the children and a lack of boundaries - letting them stay up all night and run around on the street," says one London-based social worker who has worked with Polish Roma families.
"Some parents were sending their children out begging, or getting older children to stay at home and look after their siblings." '
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crowded schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
I understand. You want higher taxes and lower public spending.
I'm disappointed that you wilfully misrepresented me.
I want immigrants to come here that contribute to our economy, pretending that they all do is simply untrue.
EU immigrants do contribute more than they take out. Strict post-Brexit immigration controls will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending.
You keep saying that, Mr. Observer, but you do not provide sources to back up your assertion. Some undoubtedly do positively contribute and are net taxpayers, but I doubt that they all are (the Romanian bloke who is bused into Hurstpierpoint from Brighton to sell the Big Issue outside our village Co-op, for one).
As a side note might I suggest that public spending is not of itself an unalloyed good - it depends on what the money is being spent on. Secondly, as you and I have discussed on here before, higher taxes may not always be unacceptable (we have, I think, agreed in the past that we would both be prepared to pay higher taxes in order to achieve socially worthwhile aims).
Of course, not all EU immigrants are net contributors. The Boston example cited downthread demonstrates that. But overall, EU immigrants taken as a whole have been consistently found to pay in more than they take out. Like you, I have no problem with paying more tax; my issue is much more with those who like to imply that somehow we will better off with fewer EU immigrants when economic and fiscal policy is currently predicated on high levels of immigration. If that is going to change, then the whole policy needs to change and that will cause pain. It might be a price worth paying, but no prominent Leavers are saying that.
Andrew showing his BBC credentials all impartiality gone. What a shame, he's actually gone red in the face with anger and frustration. I will never trust his impartiality again.
Sorry but I just don't buy this. Neil had been consistently the most favourable interviewer for Brexit. If he is angry with IDS it has nothing to do with bias. I would be very surprised to find that Neil was not at least receptive to Brexit.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crossed schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hmmm - not sure that makes sense. You are the one advocating higher taxes and lower public spending.
PB Leave redux "Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party. Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
Serious question: Is Boris against Turks coming to the EU ?
Today or next week? His views do seem to change with the tides.
The maths doesn't work under your scheme - either these immigrants are going to return home (presumably, if they are EU) with some portable pension rights from the UK government. Alternatively they will stay and require additional people in future to fund them.+ basis...
Very little is paid now-a-days from taxation. The state pension is now very small compared to thirty years ago, Most private sector pension schemes are now "money purchase" as opposed to "final salary".
The 2015/16 State pension is estimated to be costing around £90 billion. That is around 12% of total government expenditure. I would hardly say that was 'very little'.
Yes. That is historical legacy. As a percent of GDP that will gradually fall. Of course, if GDP itself does not increase............... [ the last 6 years example ]
Serious question, not at all being difficult. But why should it fall as a percentage of GDP? Our GDP is not expected to rise massively any time soon but our pension age population is rising even taking into account the changes to make people wait longer before they retire (which I understand and agree with).
I don't see how anyone can say with any confidence that the pensions burden on the State is going to reduce significantly in the foreseeable future.
[Assuming long term GDP growth trend ], the percentage will fall as newer pensioners basic pension is a lot less compared to thirty years ago, say. Triple lock or not.
Our governments encouraged people to opt out of SERPS [ remember ? ]. It was a neon light signal to better provide for yourselves.
The basic state pension now-a-days just keeps your head above water. It is the supplementary pension that gives people comfort. Very little is paid by the state for that.
Not for long.
That pension lifeboat is filling with ever more passengers (latest boarders - BHS pensioners).
Considering the abysmal rates for annuities, people are being forced into benefits in their retirement.
I see very little deep understanding of retirement provision in your posts or of the issues involved.
The government now has made enrollment in workplace pension schemes compulsory for new joiners, that is the key change
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. One of them, Miguel, gets in a car accident and needs several operations and a month in hospital. He probably erodes all the taxes paid by his nine mates on minimum wage. The thing about healthcare is that there's a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
Who pays for the healthcare costs of 200k Brits living in Costa del Sol etc. ? And, they are mostly pensioners.
Cameron is for Remain though, so in a sense this is a Trump snub to Cameron, in UK terms Trump's support would come from UKIP not the Cameroons who all back Hillary
Andrew showing his BBC credentials all impartiality gone. What a shame, he's actually gone red in the face with anger and frustration. I will never trust his impartiality again.
Sorry but I just don't buy this. Neil had been consistently the most favourable interviewer for Brexit. If he is angry with IDS it has nothing to do with bias. I would be very surprised to find that Neil was not at least receptive to Brexit.
You may be right, but I know what I saw and if you missed it, watch it on iPlayer. I've always seen Neil as even handed in the past. Maybe he has been got at by the BBC? Could happen.
PB Leave redux "Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party. Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
Serious question: Is Boris against Turks coming to the EU ?
Today or next week? His views do seem to change with the tides.
Could be tricky, as I believe his grandfather was Circassian-Turkish.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. One of them, Miguel, gets in a car accident and needs several operations and a month in hospital. He probably erodes all the taxes paid by his nine mates on minimum wage. The thing about healthcare is that there's a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
Who pays for the healthcare costs of 200k Brits living in Costa del Sol etc. ? And, they are mostly pensioners.
We pay the direct costs, just as the Spanish would pay the direct costs of Spanish nationals treated in the UK. With healthcare, it's the indirect costs that are the issue - home visits, translators, social services etc. These are far less likely to be called on by Pedro in Plumstead than Betty in Benidorm.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crossed schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hmmm - not sure that makes sense. You are the one advocating higher taxes and lower public spending.
You have completely lost it.
Start talking about per capita figures and take account of whole life figures or get lost.
And stop regarding public expenditure as good in and of itself like a pound shop Polly Toynbee.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
I'm glad we've moved on to this.
The biggest lie ever is that the population must grow to support an ageing population, if that is the case it must grown exponentially, until the population of the Isle of Wight is 20m. SOME immigration is good, Luka Modric will pay £hundreds of thousands a year in taxes, the amount contributed by a farmworker in Boston is negligible.
I want a few more Luka Modric and a few less farmworkers, those who watch Jeremy Kyle can pick spuds like we did for centuries.
I understand. You want higher taxes and lower public spending.
I'm disappointed that you wilfully misrepresented me.
I want immigrants to come here that contribute to our economy, pretending that they all do is simply untrue.
EU immigrants do contribute more than they take out. Strict post-Brexit immigration controls will lead to higher taxes and lower public spending.
You keep saying that, Mr. Observer, but you do not provide sources to back up your assertion. Some undoubtedly do positively contribute and are net taxpayers, but I doubt that they all are (the Romanian bloke who is bused into Hurstpierpoint from Brighton to sell the Big Issue outside our village Co-op, for one).
As a side note might I suggest that public spending is not of itself an unalloyed good - it depends on what the money is being spent on. Secondly, as you and I have discussed on here before, higher taxes may not always be unacceptable (we have, I think, agreed in the past that we would both be prepared to pay higher taxes in order to achieve socially worthwhile aims).
my issue is much more with those who like to imply that somehow we will better off with fewer EU immigrants when economic and fiscal policy is currently predicated on high levels of immigration.
We would be better off without the low skilled net beneficiary immigrants.
And the low skilled net beneficiary immigrants is what Britain predominantly attracts because of the differential between living wage jobs in Britain and what they can earn in their own countries.
We can innovate and invest now. And we can put in place incentives to do so. If it is not happening blame piss-poor British managements and the government. The EU is not stopping us. If there are fewer job opportunities then there will be fewer immigrants.
I never suggested that the EU was stopping us doing what we need to do to promote actual increases of wealth. However, all the time the people who make the decisions can achieve their personal goals by simply increasing the population, they will not take the hard decisions.
If it is cheaper in the short term for a company to drive down labour costs, and dump the consequences on the taxpayer (housing benefit etc.) than invest in new plant, robotics and so forth then that is what a CEO on a contract that is based on short term measures will do.
So yes, the fault lies in the lap of the UK's infamously piss poor managerial class and the politicians that they lobby.
However, the point I was making is that future prosperity does not need to rely on an massively increasing the population year on year. In fact from the point of view of the ordinary citizen increasing the population is a bad thing.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crossed schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hmmm - not sure that makes sense. You are the one advocating higher taxes and lower public spending.
You have completely lost it.
Start talking about per capita figures and take account of whole life figures or get lost.
And stop regarding public expenditure as good in and of itself like a pound shop Polly Toynbee.
Yep, that post certainly proves I have completely lost it :-)
More evidence of all that net tax contribution from 2012:
' Rotherham council says it has 43 Roma children in care or on child protection plans - far higher than the national average - and it is not just in Rotherham where this is happening, either.
BBC Radio 4's The Report programme has discovered how several local authorities across the UK are seeing a rise in Roma families coming into contact with social services.
Just how many families they are engaging with is unclear, not least because Britain's family courts are highly secretive for protection reasons.
Local authorities such as Rotherham and Sheffield report a rising number of Roma parents with child protection plans, or even having their children taken into care. The Department for Education says the number of children in care who they categorise as Gypsy/Roma has quadrupled since 2009.
"The issues we've had with Roma families have been around poor school attendance, physical chastisement of the children and a lack of boundaries - letting them stay up all night and run around on the street," says one London-based social worker who has worked with Polish Roma families.
"Some parents were sending their children out begging, or getting older children to stay at home and look after their siblings." '
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. One of them, Miguel, gets in a car accident and needs several operations and a month in hospital. He probably erodes all the taxes paid by his nine mates on minimum wage. The thing about healthcare is that there's a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
Andrew showing his BBC credentials all impartiality gone. What a shame, he's actually gone red in the face with anger and frustration. I will never trust his impartiality again.
Neil is overall a very fair interviewer giving most a tough time. Yes he was tough on IDS but IDS played a very straight and honest bat and came across well. People such as Osborne and Cameron avoid Neil.
Let's assume Britain votes Leave. Let's also assume that Britain suffers the economic shock that almost every serious economic commentator is expecting. The "price worth paying" attitude of the committed Leavers is then going to sound awful. Since the Conservative party by that stage will be in their hands, TSE's theory looks sound to me.
If Leave wins part of me is looking forward to sitting back and watching them try and make it work. If it happens I hope every Remain politician walks away on June 24th so Boris & Farage and co can't have anybody else to try and blame if and when things go tits up. If they succeed in convincing the British Public then it needs to absolutely their show from day 1 and everyone else should leave them to it.
That's a classic "picking up the football and going home " type of post if you can't get your own way.
The more sensible amongst us will, whichever way it goes, try to make it work for future generations whatever our personal preferences happen to be. That's democracy and how it should be when the people have spoken.
Wrong. If we Brexit Leavers must be 100% accountable for what happens next. If any Remainers are involved in negotiations etc thy will become the scapegoats if (when) things go tits up. If Leave win, it's their vision that has prevailed and it should absolutely down to them to sort out the country's future in the short term.
I believe Brexit to be wrong but if the majority don't agree with me then it is essential we don't get some sort of fudge that allows Leavers wriggle room to keep complaining that they would have done things differently. May 23rd will be a historic day and if Leave win then, to put it crudely, it will be time for Leavers to put their money where their mouths are.
Reducing the number of immigrants from europe would have quite a few economic effects, some possibly beneficial such as easing pressure on housing, but others less so. The increase in population from young and fertile europeans offsets our ageing baby boomer population. Without them the dependency ratio becomes a lot worse means higher taxes/lower pensions/working longer for the working age population.
The maths doesn't work under your scheme - either these immigrants are going to return home (presumably, if they are EU) with some portable pension rights from the UK government. Alternatively they will stay and require additional people in future to fund them.
The real solution (easy in theory, I warrant!) is to fund pensions on an ongoing basis. But unfortunately as they are currently paid out of taxation this will be very expensive over a 30 years+ basis...
Very little is paid now-a-days from taxation. The state pension is now very small compared to thirty years ago, Most private sector pension schemes are now "money purchase" as opposed to "final salary".
£90bn in 2015/16. You may not think that is a lot. I disagree.
We can innovate and invest now. And we can put in place incentives to do so. If it is not happening blame piss-poor British managements and the government. The EU is not stopping us. If there are fewer job opportunities then there will be fewer immigrants.
I never suggested that the EU was stopping us doing what we need to do to promote actual increases of wealth. However, all the time the people who make the decisions can achieve their personal goals by simply increasing the population, they will not take the hard decisions.
If it is cheaper in the short term for a company to drive down labour costs, and dump the consequences on the taxpayer (housing benefit etc.) than invest in new plant, robotics and so forth then that is what a CEO on a contract that is based on short term measures will do.
So yes, the fault lies in the lap of the UK's infamously piss poor managerial class and the politicians that they lobby.
However, the point I was making is that future prosperity does not need to rely on an massively increasing the population year on year. In fact from the point of view of the ordinary citizen increasing the population is a bad thing.
I understand. My point is that if the government puts in pace the incentives and managements actually start to innovate then the number of jobs available will decrease and immigration will naturally taper off.
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crossed schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hmmm - not sure that makes sense. You are the one advocating higher taxes and lower public spending.
You have completely lost it.
Start talking about per capita figures and take account of whole life figures or get lost.
And stop regarding public expenditure as good in and of itself like a pound shop Polly Toynbee.
Yep, that post certainly proves I have completely lost it :-)
Isn't it a central strand of Leave campaigning all that extra UK public spending that will be possible with the repatriated funds from the EU?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crossed schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hmmm - not sure that makes sense. You are the one advocating higher taxes and lower public spending.
You have completely lost it.
Start talking about per capita figures and take account of whole life figures or get lost.
And stop regarding public expenditure as good in and of itself like a pound shop Polly Toynbee.
Yep, that post certainly proves I have completely lost it :-)
Isn't it a central strand of Leave campaigning all that extra UK public spending that will be possible with the repatriated funds from the EU?
It is - on the very big assumption that Brexit will have no negative impact on the tax take.
Andrew showing his BBC credentials all impartiality gone. What a shame, he's actually gone red in the face with anger and frustration. I will never trust his impartiality again.
Neil is overall a very fair interviewer giving most a tough time. Yes he was tough on IDS but IDS played a very straight and honest bat and came across well. People such as Osborne and Cameron avoid Neil.
Personally I really dislike Neil's style for the same reason that it annoyed MikeK - forensic questioning is fine, but sarcastic and indignant expressions and similar Paxmanesque posturing make the programme too much about the interviewer - people switch it on to see their hero having fun with someone, rather than to listen to the answers.
Of course he does. TSE is utterly divorced from the concept of telling the truth.
Irony doesn't travel well on the internet.
Unofficially, my point was was Remain are wasting their money targeting their ads on PB as PBers have already entrenched views on the referendum, and noting is going to shift that.
Officially, Remain is wise to have adverts on PB, with the number of page views PB gets, more ads = more money Mike gets to help contribute to the costs of running PB.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. O a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
Who pays for the healthcare costs of 200k Brits living in Costa del Sol etc. ? And, they are mostly pensioners.
We pay the direct costs, just as the Spanish would pay the direct costs of Spanish nationals treated in the UK. With healthcare, it's the indirect costs that are the issue - home visits, translators, social services etc. These are far less likely to be called on by Pedro in Plumstead than Betty in Benidorm.
So are happy to try and con the Spanish into paying for our old folk? And you think there won't be consequences for them? Try looking at some old people's homes in this country to see the results of your evil little scheme. When Pedro grows old he will at least have been here 30 years; ours will have been there considerably less and won't necessarily be able to speak Spanish.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
Says who?
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
There are heaps of people who have come to London with their families and are drawing £20k-£30k a year in social welfare, using schools, GPs, midwifery and helping to push up rents and push down wages.
Trevor Phillips in STimes calls it kumbaya immigration - everything is super-dooper, when it patently isn't.
Hang on, how will it lead to higher taxes and less public spending?
Reducing immigration will reduce the number of people paying tax at a time when the population is growing older and more people are moving into retirement.
Most immigrants are in low paying jobs that are a negative impact on govt finances when the costs of supporting them and benefits are accounted for.
I don't think that's true.
Which is it that you do not think is true? Is it that most immigrants are low paid or that low paid people are a drain on the govt finances?
I think, like a lot of questions, it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
Imagine if Pedro comes over with ten friends who do the same. One of them, Miguel, gets in a car accident and needs several operations and a month in hospital. He probably erodes all the taxes paid by his nine mates on minimum wage. The thing about healthcare is that there's a small chance it costs a very large amount. This means while most minimum wage migrants won't be a net cost, on average they probably will be.
The Spanish government would pay.
And how is the NHS's record in collecting the money?
I see Rees-Mogg is calling for Mark Carney to be fired. Some people seem to struggle with the difference between being "independent" and being "neutral". The two are not the same thing.
ole policy needs to change and that will cause pain. It might be a price worth paying, but no prominent Leavers are saying that.
Fair go. Please may I ask you to think about one further question before I have to get on with preparing Sunday lunch?
You say, and I agree, "... not all EU immigrants are net contributors ...". Would the UK be better or worse off if we had a system which enabled us to welcome only those people who would be net contributors?
I see Rees-Mogg is calling for Mark Carney to be fired. Some people seem to struggle with the difference between being "independent" and being "neutral". The two are not the same thing.
As much as I like the Moggster, did JRM say the same when Mark Carney intervened during the Indyref?
Mr. Eagles, surprised Boris' chances are that high.
Another idle musing: Steve Jones is the Jar Jar Binks of F1 coverage. The race is live on Channel 4, but avoid the build-up or your brain may rot when your ears are assaulted with the delinquent wibblings of Jones.
Perhaps all those potato pickers, chambermaids, cleaners and carwashers are on above average wages.
But I suspect not.
If immigrants are so highly skilled / productive / paid / tax contributing then why has the decade of mass immigration also been the decade of stagnant productivity and real wages and during which the government has needed to borrow a trillion pounds to stop the economy from collapsing.
They are paying tax and they are taking out less than they put in. They are also a relatively small percentage of the workforce. In 2008 we have a financial crash. I imagine a fair few issues we have are related to that.
If they're on the min wage they'll pay a few quid a week in tax. Not bad value for free education for the kids and free hospitals and dentists round the corner.
Only if they have kids, get sick or need a filling. Young people - which is what most EU migrants are - are actually less likely to call on public services.
Blimey, you really are a believer in kicking the tin can down the road, aren't you?
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crossed schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
Hmmm - not sure that makes sense. You are the one advocating higher taxes and lower public spending.
You have completely lost it.
Start talking about per capita figures and take account of whole life figures or get lost.
And stop regarding public expenditure as good in and of itself like a pound shop Polly Toynbee.
Yep, that post certainly proves I have completely lost it :-)
Isn't it a central strand of Leave campaigning all that extra UK public spending that will be possible with the repatriated funds from the EU?
Nope. Spending on the NHS, most certainly. General slush fund for liberals, no.
Mr. Eagles, surprised Boris' chances are that high.
Another idle musing: Steve Jones is the Jar Jar Binks of F1 coverage. The race is live on Channel 4, but avoid the build-up or your brain may rot when your ears are assaulted with the delinquent wibblings of Jones.
I watch F1 on Sky, is Steve Jones really worse than James Allen?
I see Rees-Mogg is calling for Mark Carney to be fired. Some people seem to struggle with the difference between being "independent" and being "neutral". The two are not the same thing.
As much as I like the Moggster, did JRM say the same when Mark Carney intervened during the Indyref?
I think we know the answer ....
Politician is opportunist shocker .... In other news Mrs JackW buys shoes in Paris ....
Mr. Eagles, surprised Boris' chances are that high.
Another idle musing: Steve Jones is the Jar Jar Binks of F1 coverage. The race is live on Channel 4, but avoid the build-up or your brain may rot when your ears are assaulted with the delinquent wibblings of Jones.
He is quite telegenic and charismatic though which is what you want in a host but I don't think even he pretends he is an expert on F1, that is from the likes of David Coulthard etc (he also interviewed Lauda and Prost yesterday)
More evidence of all that net tax contribution from 2012:
' Rotherham council says it has 43 Roma children in care or on child protection plans - far higher than the national average - and it is not just in Rotherham where this is happening, either.
BBC Radio 4's The Report programme has discovered how several local authorities across the UK are seeing a rise in Roma families coming into contact with social services.
Just how many families they are engaging with is unclear, not least because Britain's family courts are highly secretive for protection reasons.
Local authorities such as Rotherham and Sheffield report a rising number of Roma parents with child protection plans, or even having their children taken into care. The Department for Education says the number of children in care who they categorise as Gypsy/Roma has quadrupled since 2009.
"The issues we've had with Roma families have been around poor school attendance, physical chastisement of the children and a lack of boundaries - letting them stay up all night and run around on the street," says one London-based social worker who has worked with Polish Roma families.
"Some parents were sending their children out begging, or getting older children to stay at home and look after their siblings." '
I see Rees-Mogg is calling for Mark Carney to be fired. Some people seem to struggle with the difference between being "independent" and being "neutral". The two are not the same thing.
As much as I like the Moggster, did JRM say the same when Mark Carney intervened during the Indyref?
Hmm...I've mused about this.
No deep thoughts as yet, just unease when someone who is supposed to have our interests at heart and is paid by us starts associating and conniving with foreigners. It all depends how you viewed the Scots during IndyRef. And they the English.
@tamcohen: Jacob Rees-Mogg: 'What Boris said was absolutely true...but instead of doing it by force, EU doing it by stealth.' #Peston
Bloody hell. So are there secret gas chambers and ovens out there that we do not know about?
I like JR-M (a lot more than I like Boris) but I really can't understand why he is pushing this line.
For the vast majority of the British public the name Hitler means genocide and gas chambers. If you want to make a claim about European domination then there are lots of other plausible examples without the emotive connotations of Nazism. Invoking Hitler is a lazy, ill informed route to take. It is Leave doing exactly what Remain have been doing and making ludicrous claims.
Boris' claim is the ultimate aim is identical, albeit by different means. It appears people trust him, perhaps when people have stopped jumping up and down they'll realise he was right.
Per
Have Boris's Hitler remarks been shown to have damaged Leave?
They might not - but his points may not be as effective as they could have been for Leave, because most people won't see anything about his fundamental point and will just see the Hitler comparison. As an example, I'm for Leave and it's annoyed me no end. Not representative, to be sure, but already I'm less interested in what he might have to say next time, and if a waverer feels the same, that could be important.
It doesn't have to be that Leave have been negatively impacted; they could well have missed out on a positive impact because Boris was an idiot and dropped in a Hitler comparison when he didn't need to - he already made the point without it.
I find that an unlikely theory, because it's only the fact that he mentioned Hitler that got his comments splashed across the front pages and widely commented upon. More people who heard them might have been impressed by their reasonability, but far greater magnitudes wouldn't have even heard them.
Mr. HYUFD, it's fine to have an everyman fan as a host. An ignorant juvenile, on the other hand...
We must agree to disagree on his charisma, or lack thereof.
I have to disagree, you certainly need your technical experts like Coulthard to keep the hardcore fans happy but to draw in a larger audience of non F1 fanatics you want someone presenting who is likeable and charismatic which Jones is
So, over to Hillary: back of the queue are we, Hillary? If not, Remain look like right twats for getting Obama to spout this line....
Hillary will stick to the Cameron line however Trump may have done his popularity in the UK some good with this statement, at least with Leave voters and Kippers
Mr. Eagles, you do realise Carthage recovered rapidly? In later centuries (7th, I think) it even saved 'Rome' when Heraclius sailed from the Exarchate to depose Flavius Phocas.
Comments
Take Pedro, a temporary Spanish immigrant. He comes to the UK, works at Pret a Manger for nine quid an hour for 18 months, and returns home. He claims no benefits while he's here, and doesn't use the NHS. Now, you can make the argument that his presence - by increasing the pool of labour that Pret has to use - has lowered wages. But I don't think you can make the case that he's a drag on government finances.
If you think about the things that the government spends money on - during one's life - it's health, education and social services. If you aren't using any of those services during your time in the UK, then it's unlikely - irrespective of whether you're low paid or not - that you are a drag on government finances.
"Ken talked about Hitler? Obsessive racist! He's destroying his party.
Boris talked about Hitler? Err, let me explain it's not as simple as that... you might see he was making several classical allusions... the core point was correct... people give him the benefit of the doubt... there's been no polling evidence that it's hurt us in the last few hours..."
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/367
How do you know they're taking out less than they put in ?
Are they not eligible for benefits, do their kids not use the local schools, are they banned from using the NHS ?
As to their proportion of the workforce which part of the country has the highest percentage of Eastern European immigrants ?
Boston.
' Park primary demonstrates that demographic change: 62% of pupils at the school are from migrant backgrounds, overwhelmingly from eastern Europe. A recent Ofsted report, largely positive about the efforts being made in the face of obvious adversity, noted that almost all on arrival are at an early stage of learning English: no wonder the parking sign outside is translated into five languages. '
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/11/census-boston-eastern-european-immigration
Andrew showing his BBC credentials all impartiality gone. What a shame, he's actually gone red in the face with anger and frustration. I will never trust his impartiality again.
REMAIN have made many ridiculous comments too but the ability of some Tories to turn on their own because they are desperate for LEAVE to win is so chuckle inducing as to give hyperbole and opportunism a good name.
As a side note might I suggest that public spending is not of itself an unalloyed good - it depends on what the money is being spent on. Secondly, as you and I have discussed on here before, higher taxes may not always be unacceptable (we have, I think, agreed in the past that we would both be prepared to pay higher taxes in order to achieve socially worthwhile aims).
' BBC Inside Out reporter Kate Bradbrook travelled from Rotherham to Slovakia to meet the people desperate to move to Yorkshire, to escape grinding poverty and overcrowded conditions in their home country.
Among the terraced streets and suburban sprawl of Ferham, a suburb of Rotherham, there is a growing population of Roma Slovak migrants.
It is a similar picture in the Page Hall area of Sheffield, and in Hexthorpe just outside Doncaster.
Many adapt well to their new home, but others - according to residents -bring with them behaviours which are often unacceptable to their neighbours.
Making noise late at night as they gather "socially" on the streets after dark, and leaving piles of litter on the pavements are two common complaints. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29068034
https://twitter.com/lbcbreaking/status/731787890385125376
' Rotherham council says it has 43 Roma children in care or on child protection plans - far higher than the national average - and it is not just in Rotherham where this is happening, either.
BBC Radio 4's The Report programme has discovered how several local authorities across the UK are seeing a rise in Roma families coming into contact with social services.
Just how many families they are engaging with is unclear, not least because Britain's family courts are highly secretive for protection reasons.
Local authorities such as Rotherham and Sheffield report a rising number of Roma parents with child protection plans, or even having their children taken into care. The Department for Education says the number of children in care who they categorise as Gypsy/Roma has quadrupled since 2009.
"The issues we've had with Roma families have been around poor school attendance, physical chastisement of the children and a lack of boundaries - letting them stay up all night and run around on the street," says one London-based social worker who has worked with Polish Roma families.
"Some parents were sending their children out begging, or getting older children to stay at home and look after their siblings." '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20770420
Also, who would paying the taxes and whose children are in over-crossed schools?
Let me guess. The rich and businessmen would be paying the extra taxes you mention, the poor get the over-crowded schools and suppressed water.
No wonder the polls are closing together as this message unintendedly seeps through.
I've always seen Neil as even handed in the past. Maybe he has been got at by the BBC? Could happen.
Start talking about per capita figures and take account of whole life figures or get lost.
And stop regarding public expenditure as good in and of itself like a pound shop Polly Toynbee.
And the low skilled net beneficiary immigrants is what Britain predominantly attracts because of the differential between living wage jobs in Britain and what they can earn in their own countries.
F1: pre-race piece is up here, although it's worth noting my form this year has been horrendous:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/spain-pre-race-2016.html
If it is cheaper in the short term for a company to drive down labour costs, and dump the consequences on the taxpayer (housing benefit etc.) than invest in new plant, robotics and so forth then that is what a CEO on a contract that is based on short term measures will do.
So yes, the fault lies in the lap of the UK's infamously piss poor managerial class and the politicians that they lobby.
However, the point I was making is that future prosperity does not need to rely on an massively increasing the population year on year. In fact from the point of view of the ordinary citizen increasing the population is a bad thing.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/katie-backs-boris-over-eu-hitler-comments---130555
I believe Brexit to be wrong but if the majority don't agree with me then it is essential we don't get some sort of fudge that allows Leavers wriggle room to keep complaining that they would have done things differently. May 23rd will be a historic day and if Leave win then, to put it crudely, it will be time for Leavers to put their money where their mouths are.
https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/
Implied probability of Trump becoming President 25%
Implied probability of Leave winning 30%
Unofficially, my point was was Remain are wasting their money targeting their ads on PB as PBers have already entrenched views on the referendum, and noting is going to shift that.
Officially, Remain is wise to have adverts on PB, with the number of page views PB gets, more ads = more money Mike gets to help contribute to the costs of running PB.
But, out of sight, out of mind, eh?
Personally, I'm not going to bother as I put on a tiny sum (each way). Unlikely to work out, but it'd be super if it did.
Abysmal, I seem to recall.
So Boris has a worse chance of being next Tory leader than Trump becoming POTUS or Leave winning.
You say, and I agree, "... not all EU immigrants are net contributors ...". Would the UK be better or worse off if we had a system which enabled us to welcome only those people who would be net contributors?
Another idle musing: Steve Jones is the Jar Jar Binks of F1 coverage. The race is live on Channel 4, but avoid the build-up or your brain may rot when your ears are assaulted with the delinquent wibblings of Jones.
Politician is opportunist shocker .... In other news Mrs JackW buys shoes in Paris ....
Worst person on F1 coverage I can remember. Worse than Legard's commentary. Well, maybe.
Now how many immigrants have to be net tax contributors to pay for that social care alone ?
We must agree to disagree on his charisma, or lack thereof.
Because that surely is the biggest whopper of the EU referendum campaign so far, and that's no mean feat.
No deep thoughts as yet, just unease when someone who is supposed to have our interests at heart and is paid by us starts associating and conniving with foreigners. It all depends how you viewed the Scots during IndyRef. And they the English.
It's also worth mentioning that Boris wrote about this back in 2002, so he's not being inconsistent, and that there would appear to be more to his argument than just the superficial similarities: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3578741/Whats-Hitler-got-to-do-with-the-euro-Everything.html
They then try to force people to believe those conclusions based on appeal to authority.
Most people don't appreciate the minutiae of economic forecasting and hence Leave have to try to undermine the authority appeal.
But do you really believe the £4,300 claim?