Will Brexit have an impact on F1?

[FoxHound]

UK taxpayer pays the low-waged ('working family') a large lump sum annually - the so-called 'tax credit'
but the country runs on a huge public debt, and so is actually economically smaller/less rich than it appears on paper

The UK pays nothing unless the tax is earned. A family with 2 working parents will earn around 36k jointly, of this around 8 k is fed back to them in forms of tax credit and child benefit.
So in effect they are paying for themselves. On top of this, as I have mentioned before, the UK is a tertiary economy.
That means things like mobile phone bills, council tax, SKY, running a car, fuel tax, food, anything you do that costs money, will add value to the economy. Economic migrants.

If we compare only what they directly contribute, they are by a few hundred millions in credit to the economy. If we then see the overall benefit of their spending, it is exponentially bigger and of more value to the economy.

[turbof1]

I find it a bit baffling that you are showing graphs highlighting a somewhat natural problem and progression of aging population... as if millions of refugees that won't be integrateable into the market for decades will solve that.... by costing the public even more?

I'm more baffled at your inability to comprehend the graph. It's not a natural problem: people have less kids then for instance in the 50s (the so called baby boomers), which is coupled to a higher life expectancy. There are scandinavic countries where population is actually declining purely because people are dying more then are born. And this not because of a war, or a disease, or poor life expectancies. No this is simply people conciously not wanting kids. That graphs is as easy to comprehend as much as it tells the truth, which is frightening: people get both older and have less a demographic base to sustain society.

I don't feel like discussing this anymore. There is no point to it. I could just well argue that the earth is round, with the church in the dark ages.

On an unrelated note: Farage decided to quit UKIP and say goodbye to national politics, but ironically and hypocritical:

Farage will remain a lawmaker in the EU Parliament he joined in 1999. He last week told fellow lawmakers, “virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... al-turmoil

Yeah, pure disgust for this.

[FoxHound]

Farage,

Blames hornets nest, Kicks hornets nest, Leaves hornet nest kicking party, then goes to work with hornets in their nest.

You could not make it up.

His successor is likely one Douglas Carswell. Aka Popeye....and not for the muscles or spinach eating habits...

[bhall II]

I like to imagine the first post-referendum conversation between Johnson and Farage went something like this...

"We won!?"

"Wait, what?"

"Dude, we won."

"---. What now?"

"I dunno about you, but I'm gettin' the --- out of here!"

"Right behind you!"

(I'm not sure why they have American accents in my head.)

[domh245]

(I'm not sure why they have American accents in my head.)

Because in the inevitable film adaption they'll be played by American actors with poor British accents?

[hollus]

This is F1T, so why not put some numbers to it? In a total shocker boom of immgration that was 2015, 1.little million refugees appear to have come to the EU, between 1.0 and 1.8 million dependind on the source. The population of the EU was 508 million at the beginning of 2015, so 509 million now?
that makes the biggest refugee shock ever experienced approximately 0.28% of the population or, in other words, 1 person in 362.

[FoxHound]

This is F1T, so why not put some numbers to it? In a total shocker boom of immgration that was 2015, 1.little million refugees appear to have come to the EU, between 1.0 and 1.8 million dependind on the source. The population of the EU was 508 million at the beginning of 2015, so 509 million now?
that makes the biggest refugee shock ever experienced approximately 0.28% of the population or, in other words, 1 person in 362.

In so far as what that has to do with Brexit, and EU nationals living within the UK, I'm a bit lost.

Also, the Million odd refugees are also not here for an indefinite period, as far as I'm aware. Germany took a motherload of refugees, on the premise that once the Syria tragedy subsides, most would return.

[Phil]

I'm more baffled at your inability to comprehend the graph. It's not a natural problem: people have less kids then for instance in the 50s (the so called baby boomers), which is coupled to a higher life expectancy.

Even so, i am yet to hear a compelling arguement how an influx of millions of refugees that are not easily integrateable into the market will solve this? These refugees will cost money, as will it to create jobs, education and room for living. These people will not be financing any locals soon, if ever, but will cost them, eventually also compete for the same jobs at less salary (or live off social care). How does any of this solve anything?

If they are cheap labor, they will devalue jobs and ultimately compete with your own citizens.

If they are not employable, they are by definition a burden to the economy.

Arent we just pushing the problem along here?


@Fox, the idea that they will go back is a pipe dream. The process of deportation is very complicated. The millions here are likely going to stay, which is why many nations are at loss at what to do.

[FoxHound]

I'm more baffled at your inability to comprehend the graph. It's not a natural problem: people have less kids then for instance in the 50s (the so called baby boomers), which is coupled to a higher life expectancy.

Even so, i am yet to hear a compelling arguement how an influx of millions of refugees that are not easily integrateable into the market will solve this? These refugees will cost money, as will it to create jobs, education and room for living. These people will not be financing any locals soon, if ever, but will cost them, eventually also compete for the same jobs at less salary (or live off social care). How does any of this solve anything?

If they are cheap labor, they will devalue jobs and ultimately compete with your own citizens.

If they are not employable, they are by definition a burden to the economy.

Arent we just pushing the problem along here?


@Fox, the idea that they will go back is a pipe dream. The process of deportation is very complicated. The millions here are likely going to stay, which is why many nations are at loss at what to do.

Shall we just leave em to it then Phil?

Repatriation is not a problem for the most watched, least private continent on earth.

[bhall II]

European immigrants to Britain cost the taxpayer £3 million a day last year, according to a new analysis.

MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher border controls, said the overall cost of immigration from Europe – including recent arrivals and those who have lived here many decades - was £1.2 billion last year.

The sum was calculated by deducting the cost of benefits and public services, such as the NHS, which were consumed by migrants from the amount of money they contributed to the Exchequer through tax.

In another important finding, the new research said immigrants who have arrived since 2001 – including hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the eastern European countries which joined the EU from 2004 – had been “cost neutral” to Britain.

Those coming here in the last 15 years contributed as much to the economy as they took out in welfare payments and public services, according to MigrationWatch’s calculations.

Within that group eastern European migrants cost the Exchequer £2.8 billion in 2014-15 but this deficit was cancelled out by a £2.8 billion surplus generated by migrants from other European countries such as France and Spain.

[...]

Don't mind me. I'm just an American who's tickled to see other countries struggle with the same bullshit problems. Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones.

Because in the inevitable film adaption they'll be played by American actors with poor British accents?

I rather enjoyed Kevin Costner's turn as Robin Hood. I'm not even joking.

[Pierce89]

European immigrants to Britain cost the taxpayer £3 million a day last year, according to a new analysis.

MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher border controls, said the overall cost of immigration from Europe – including recent arrivals and those who have lived here many decades - was £1.2 billion last year.

The sum was calculated by deducting the cost of benefits and public services, such as the NHS, which were consumed by migrants from the amount of money they contributed to the Exchequer through tax.

In another important finding, the new research said immigrants who have arrived since 2001 – including hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the eastern European countries which joined the EU from 2004 – had been “cost neutral” to Britain.

Those coming here in the last 15 years contributed as much to the economy as they took out in welfare payments and public services, according to MigrationWatch’s calculations.

Within that group eastern European migrants cost the Exchequer £2.8 billion in 2014-15 but this deficit was cancelled out by a £2.8 billion surplus generated by migrants from other European countries such as France and Spain.

[...]

Don't mind me. I'm just an American who's tickled to see other countries struggle with the same bullshit problems. Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones.

Because in the inevitable film adaption they'll be played by American actors with poor British accents?

I rather enjoyed Kevin Costner's turn as Robin Hood. I'm not even joking.

Prince of Thieves, hell yeah, used to LOVE that movie.

[FoxHound]

Ben,

Sourcing tainted info from MigrationWatch, itself with a vested interest in Brexit and Anti-immigration, is biased.
It's also wrong.

Professor Christian Dustmann of University College London has found that between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of migrants from the ten central and eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007 was almost £5 billion. Over the same period, British citizens received more in public spending than they paid in tax.

The FT are far more reliable, you'll concur.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0deacb52-178b ... z4DTsoYRkh

European migration I'll add.

And, as we're on the subject of money.... The UK costs of Educating a child from 5 to 18 Will set the taxpayer back around £150k.
With us Europeans, we're free of that 150k burden and ready to start earning the UK cash from the get go.

[bhall II]

Sourcing tainted info from MigrationWatch, itself with a vested interest in Brexit and Anti-immigration, is biased.

The source is what makes this part so good...

In another important finding, the new research said immigrants who have arrived since 2001 – including hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the eastern European countries which joined the EU from 2004 – had been “cost neutral” to Britain.

Those coming here in the last 15 years contributed as much to the economy as they took out in welfare payments and public services, according to MigrationWatch’s calculations.

Even those who rail at the EU because of its effect on immigration policy can't produce numbers that support their case.

One thing I've noticed is that anti-immigration arguments tend to rely upon rules that just don't apply to post-industrial societies like the UK and the US. The relatively high-paying, semi-skilled manufacturing jobs that most people seem to be afraid of losing are either already gone or are soon to depart, and they're never coming back. Ultimately, it means any immigration policy that adds labor at no cost to taxpayers is effective, because that usually means it's seriously boosting productivity in sectors that rarely pay well.

Despite what some folks may have us believe, we don't live in the same world as our grandparents and great-grandparents. We have to look at it through a different lens.

[Andres125sx]

I'm more baffled at your inability to comprehend the graph. It's not a natural problem: people have less kids then for instance in the 50s (the so called baby boomers), which is coupled to a higher life expectancy.

Even so, i am yet to hear a compelling arguement how an influx of millions of refugees that are not easily integrateable into the market will solve this? These refugees will cost money, as will it to create jobs, education and room for living. These people will not be financing any locals soon, if ever, but will cost them, eventually also compete for the same jobs at less salary (or live off social care). How does any of this solve anything?

If they are cheap labor, they will devalue jobs and ultimately compete with your own citizens.

If they are not employable, they are by definition a burden to the economy.

Arent we just pushing the problem along here?


@Fox, the idea that they will go back is a pipe dream. The process of deportation is very complicated. The millions here are likely going to stay, which is why many nations are at loss at what to do.

Phil, I´m afraid you´re confusind refugees with ilegal immigrants, and they´re completely different.

Refugees are people who had a live on their countries, with their house, their job, their family, and many of them their degree, like any of us, until some barbarian entered their town/city shooting everyone who don´t share their belief, so they were forced to run away and abandon their whole lifes back to save theirs and their families lifes.

Confusing immigrants and refugees is a very common problem, but also a huge mistake

[henry]

It's interesting to hear some non uk perspectives on Brexit. In many cases you seem better informed than my fellow countrymen, or at least more detached.

I have been following the trail for understanding of the result and, taking my prejudices into account, my impression is that there were sufficient people who just wanted change.

This is fully consistent with our general notions of government and democracy. We have a form of elected dictatorship. The Conservative party rules for a while until sufficient of the populace feel it's time for a change and then the Labour Party get their turn. To make the decision straightforward the parties try not to agree on anything. Consensus is a dirty word used only by wishy washy liberals. We had a chance to change this 5 years ago and voted, strangely, for the status quo. My prejudice says this is rooted in our antagonistic legal system.

So the British populace is familiar with making their feelings known in a binary manner. In this case we had a vote against the status quo. What many people expect is that the things they would like to be changed will be changed and things will get better, maybe not now, but probably we'll see some improvements by the end of the year.

There's a possibility we're going to be disappointed.

The same is true of F1. Change has been mandated. Next year things will be "better". Whatever people felt needed to change that's what they will expect. Some, maybe quite a few, will be disappointed. Watch out for people saying " boo hoo they're still lifting and coasting".