Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 4, 2019 12:42:54 GMT
Problem is, every study ever done anywhere concludes that on aggregate immigrants pay more into the system than they take out (including the NHS). So the NHS will be worse off without them. Every sensible study concludes that the net cost of migration is very difficult to measure, all the other studies are based on propaganda and/or produced by entities with an axe to grind. Simple observation and basic logic suggests that migrants from poorer countries will require proportionately more health and education support and be less able to contribute.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 4, 2019 12:44:06 GMT
Correct, of course. The NHS is actually a business and as such has FAR too many "Customers" who haven't paid a razoo for the product. You can just lob here with your 3 to 5+ kids and Missus and go straight into the finest health care for free for the entire family. And at least one of those sprogs often has a chronic illness which requires long term and expensive care. I am not against immigration but a solution might be for ALL Incomers to pay some sort of increased National Insurance initially which tapers down to standard levels after a set number of years? I look around my local surgery and it's pretty obvious very few have paid much, if anything into the system. I am also reminded of the phone conversation the Receptionist had a while ago where Mr ******* was a second time no-show for his appointment, with the Receptionist trying to explain the wasted expense of having booked a Translator! The irony was not lost on me that, albeit using broken English, the Receptionist was still able to reasonably communicate with Mr ******** I hazard a guess that those who have "paid" for the NHS (moi, over 30 years) treat it with huge respect, and those who have lobbed often take the urine. Problem is, every study ever done anywhere concludes that on aggregate immigrants pay more into the system than they take out (including the NHS). So the NHS will be worse off without them. No idea, probably/possibly true, so can't argue. However, unless I misunderstand, these "studies" are probably based on individuals paying into the system, and take no account whatsoever of the spouse/partner and myriad children and other dependents? Which would mean immigrants do take more out of the system than they pay in? Surely, regardless, immigrants should anyway pay higher NI initially to "catch up" with the NHS system, which would be fair?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 4, 2019 12:51:11 GMT
Problem is, every study ever done anywhere concludes that on aggregate immigrants pay more into the system than they take out (including the NHS). So the NHS will be worse off without them. No idea, probably/possibly true, so can't argue. However, unless I misunderstand, these "studies" are probably based on individuals paying into the system, and take no account whatsoever of the spouse/partner and myriad children and other dependents? Which would mean immigrants do take more out of the system than they pay in? Surely, regardless, immigrants should anyway pay higher NI initially to "catch up" with the NHS system, which would be fair? I suspect such studies are limited to what tax immigrants might pay vs which benefits they might use. Doubt very much they include impact on cost of housing and/or on need for infrastructure (health, roads, schools). If you're well off - and particularly if you own property - immigration is probably a very good thing - makes your property worth more and causes downward pressure on wages at the low end (my local car wash run by non-English speaking eastern Europeans). If you're in an unskilled low-paying job and don't own property, it's probably very bad for you.
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jan 4, 2019 13:01:20 GMT
Britain looks after its poor very well. We have one of the most generous wealthfare states in the world. I completely agree that living below your means is the secret path to freedom. However, educated wealthy people would embrace a diet of porridge, lentils, pulses (I love all the “poverty” foods) whereas you won’t find that stuff in a food bank because it’s not wanted. Government have a responsibility to better educate people on how to live well and healthily on a low budget. Mrmoneymustache/bogleheads types enjoy frugal living because they value simplicity/health/freedom. Getting deep here people. Disagree with you there. I think making new UC claimants wait 8 weeks with no payment whatsoever and having approx 320k homeless doesn't equate to looking after your poor "very well". Also I read MrMoneyMustache and the guy is full of shhh; it is only really relevant for families with 2 well-above-average incomes and if you have that then half of what he says is bleeding obvious anyway...
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Jan 4, 2019 13:06:08 GMT
Britain looks after its poor very well. We have one of the most generous wealthfare states in the world. I completely agree that living below your means is the secret path to freedom. However, educated wealthy people would embrace a diet of porridge, lentils, pulses (I love all the “poverty” foods) whereas you won’t find that stuff in a food bank because it’s not wanted. Government have a responsibility to better educate people on how to live well and healthily on a low budget. Mrmoneymustache/bogleheads types enjoy frugal living because they value simplicity/health/freedom. Getting deep here people. Disagree with you there. I think making new UC claimants wait 8 weeks with no payment whatsoever and having approx 320k homeless doesn't equate to looking after your poor "very well". Also I read MrMoneyMustache and the guy is full of shhh; it is only really relevant for families with 2 well-above-average incomes and if you have that then half of what he says is bleeding obvious anyway... Yes the 8 week wait is wrong. 320k homeless is 0.45% of the population, not too bad. Not sure any country has found a good way to deal with that sector of society yet. Why would you read MMM if you thought it was sht? A lot of what he says is basic common sense.
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jan 4, 2019 13:09:29 GMT
Disagree with you there. I think making new UC claimants wait 8 weeks with no payment whatsoever and having approx 320k homeless doesn't equate to looking after your poor "very well". Also I read MrMoneyMustache and the guy is full of shhh; it is only really relevant for families with 2 well-above-average incomes and if you have that then half of what he says is bleeding obvious anyway... Yes the 8 week wait is wrong. 320k homeless is 0.45% of the population, not too bad. Not sure any country has found a good way to deal with that sector of society yet. Why would you read MMM if you thought it was sht? A lot of what he says is basic common sense. You know when something sounds to good to be true, so you investigate and then it turns out it WAS to good to be true all along? Basically that! He's saying he's got the path to early retirement etc etc but like I say with a middling income and a partner not currently in work it's a pipe dream.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 4, 2019 13:38:02 GMT
The 320K 'homeless' aren't (as some might think) living on the streets. Rather it's a mix of those living rough (the only ones homeless imo), those in temporary B&Bs and other categories.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 4, 2019 13:47:10 GMT
Problem is, every study ever done anywhere concludes that on aggregate immigrants pay more into the system than they take out (including the NHS). So the NHS will be worse off without them. No idea, probably/possibly true, so can't argue. However, unless I misunderstand, these "studies" are probably based on individuals paying into the system, and take no account whatsoever of the spouse/partner and myriad children and other dependents? Which would mean immigrants do take more out of the system than they pay in? Surely, regardless, immigrants should anyway pay higher NI initially to "catch up" with the NHS system, which would be fair? There isn't a fund to be "paid into". NHS budgets are paid here and now by current tax payers: i.e. current tax pays for current healthcare. So I don't see why immigrants should pay retrospectively for other people's previous healthcare. Pensions are different, and you get less if you have paid into the fund for a shorter period. Education is the same as for health, education budgets are a current expenditure. And anyway, anyone without kids is subsiding anyone with kids much more than any effect of immigrants. Housing - there isn't enough full stop, any effects of immigration probably marginal, but housing benefit is a scandalous state subsidy of wealthy landlords that we would do well to reform. Fact checks here make interesting reading: fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/I was amused that as a lifelong UK citizen/resident, some would treat my lifelong UK citizen/resident children as either half immigrants or full immigrants for the purposes of these calculations because their mother is Greek.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 4, 2019 14:16:59 GMT
"Problem is, every study ever done anywhere concludes that on aggregate immigrants pay more into the system than they take out (including the NHS). So the NHS will be worse off without them."No idea, probably/possibly true, so can't argue. However, unless I misunderstand, these "studies" are probably based on individuals paying into the system, and take no account whatsoever of the spouse/partner and myriad children and other dependents? Which would mean immigrants do take more out of the system than they pay in? Surely, regardless, immigrants should anyway pay higher NI initially to "catch up" with the NHS system, which would be fair? There isn't a fund to be "paid into". NHS budgets are paid here and now by current tax payers: i.e. current tax pays for current healthcare. So I don't see why immigrants should pay retrospectively for other people's previous healthcare. Pensions are different, and you get less if you have paid into the fund for a shorter period. Education is the same as for health, education budgets are a current expenditure. And anyway, anyone without kids is subsiding anyone with kids much more than any effect of immigrants. Housing - there isn't enough full stop, any effects of immigration probably marginal, but housing benefit is a scandalous state subsidy of wealthy landlords that we would do well to reform. Fact checks here make interesting reading: fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/I was amused that as a lifelong UK citizen/resident, some would treat my lifelong UK citizen/resident children as either half immigrants or full immigrants for the purposes of these calculations because their mother is Greek. Here's a controversial one, maybe the Government should stop Child Benefit and divert it to the NHS? As a single we get hammered all our lives subsidising families, and the only concessions I'm aware of is with Council Tax where "solos" (not Singles) graciously receive a 2%5 discount, but only if you live on your own , singles living together in one house still get hammered!
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jan 4, 2019 14:38:42 GMT
There isn't a fund to be "paid into". NHS budgets are paid here and now by current tax payers: i.e. current tax pays for current healthcare. So I don't see why immigrants should pay retrospectively for other people's previous healthcare. Pensions are different, and you get less if you have paid into the fund for a shorter period. Education is the same as for health, education budgets are a current expenditure. And anyway, anyone without kids is subsiding anyone with kids much more than any effect of immigrants. Housing - there isn't enough full stop, any effects of immigration probably marginal, but housing benefit is a scandalous state subsidy of wealthy landlords that we would do well to reform. Fact checks here make interesting reading: fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/I was amused that as a lifelong UK citizen/resident, some would treat my lifelong UK citizen/resident children as either half immigrants or full immigrants for the purposes of these calculations because their mother is Greek. Here's a controversial one, maybe the Government should stop Child Benefit and divert it to the NHS? As a single we get hammered all our lives subsidising families, and the only concessions I'm aware of is with Council Tax where "solos" (not Singles) graciously receive a 2%5 discount, but only if you live on your own , singles living together in one house still get hammered! An interesting thought; but I'm sure you don't need me telling you no children = end of civilisation as we know it so disincentivising (not a word but bear with me) having children may not be great news in the long run. PS I for one only had children to get that sweet sweet child benefit money 
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 4, 2019 15:11:46 GMT
Here's a controversial one, maybe the Government should stop Child Benefit and divert it to the NHS? As a single we get hammered all our lives subsidising families, and the only concessions I'm aware of is with Council Tax where "solos" (not Singles) graciously receive a 2%5 discount, but only if you live on your own , singles living together in one house still get hammered! An interesting thought; but I'm sure you don't need me telling you no children = end of civilisation as we know it so disincentivising (not a word but bear with me) having children may not be great news in the long run. PS I for one only had children to get that sweet sweet child benefit money It is, of course, only a possible solution, in the "Think the unthinkable" category, a category which surely has to be very seriously considered if any kind of satisfactory result is to ever be obtained, IMHO. I'm obviously aware of your point, as you say. I don't however personally think it would be very much of a "disincentive" at all, The System already redistributes tax monies in varying amounts back to families. eg, last time I looked, over half of my Council Tax goes to Education. I don't begrudge that, but some benefits are surely set to be curtailed so they can be diverted to the NHS? The 64 thousand dollar Question of course, is "Which benefits?"!!! And there's another gnarly subject, I pay £2K pa for PMI (Private Medical Insurance) and rarely use the NHS. Yet another Double Whammy? (Commentators, please also don't remind me that for A & E and Long Term Care/Chronic Illness that you are still diverted to the NHS, that's not the point.) We're just having healthy debate here, it's a Forum guys & gals. 
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 4, 2019 15:19:25 GMT
An interesting thought; but I'm sure you don't need me telling you no children = end of civilisation as we know it so disincentivising (not a word but bear with me) having children may not be great news in the long run. PS I for one only had children to get that sweet sweet child benefit money It is, of course, only a possible solution, in the "Think the unthinkable" category, a category which surely has to be very seriously considered if any kind of satisfactory result is to ever be obtained, IMHO. I'm obviously aware of your point, as you say. Tricky one, as withdrawing child benefit would be seen as impacting the (blameless) children, rather than the (sometimes blameworthy) parents. Having said that, no guarantee that parents spend child benefit solely on the children.
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jan 4, 2019 15:24:06 GMT
Also worth bearing in mind cost of implementation of things. EG if you talk about means testing winter fuel allowance or child benefit; the means testing can end up costing more than the money saved by not paying benefits to wealthy pensioners/parents.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Jan 4, 2019 15:40:33 GMT
Throwing more money at the NHS is like installing bigger pumps on an increasingly heavy increasingly leaky boat. Major reform is needed; not only more money. I am bowled over by how much pissing about is required of doctors (yesterday my wife - a specialist trainee - came home from St. Georges having spent the best part of an afternoon finding 25 patients who had time - and could speak English - to respond personally to a feedback questionnaire. Great use of her time... But required by default). Then there is the computer systems... It's all a little unbelievable if I'm honest; I doubt most people would believe the truth if they knew how inefficient it all is - and how much superfluous duplication of work there is across the country. And there's another gnarly subject, I pay £2K pa for PMI (Private Medical Insurance) and rarely use the NHS. Yet another Double Whammy? (Commentators, please also don't remind me that for A & E and Long Term Care/Chronic Illness that you are still diverted to the NHS, that's not the point.) how do you balance the safety of avoiding the NHS with comfort? Even minor procedures can go wrong -- and every minute can count. How much further would you be from a properly equipped hospital compared to going NHS from the start? Just curious how people evaluate this aspect of 'PMI'
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 4, 2019 15:46:50 GMT
Throwing more money at the NHS is like installing bigger pumps on an increasingly heavy increasingly leaky boat. Major reform is needed; not only more money. I am bowled over by how much pissing about is required of doctors (yesterday my wife - a specialist trainee - came home from St. Georges having spent the best part of an afternoon finding 25 patients who had time - and could speak English - to respond personally to a feedback questionnaire. Great use of her time... But required by default). Then there is the computer systems... It's all a little unbelievable if I'm honest; I doubt most people would believe the truth if they knew how inefficient it all is - and how much superfluous duplication of work there is across the country. And there's another gnarly subject, I pay £2K pa for PMI (Private Medical Insurance) and rarely use the NHS. Yet another Double Whammy? (Commentators, please also don't remind me that for A & E and Long Term Care/Chronic Illness that you are still diverted to the NHS, that's not the point.) how do you balance the safety of avoiding the NHS with comfort? Even minor procedures can go wrong -- and every minute can count. How much further would you be from a properly equipped hospital compared to going NHS from the start? Just curious how people evaluate this aspect of 'PMI' Most private health providers allow you to see an NHS-registered Consultant, not something you're guaranteed under the NHS. Imo safety fears are groundless.
|
|
