Housing Shortage

[Causus Deli]

This is not a housing shortage this is a people glut. The population should be 30-40 million in this country and the stupid pension stories continue to bolster the imaginary need for low tax paying imports. 90% of them don’t pay enough tax to cover their own costs, it’s the top 10% from the US and Western EU that makes the figures look OK. Who do you think will be at the top of the list when new houses are built, let me enlighten you it will be those with many kids they cannot afford and that will not be our kids kids.

[Euro-commuter]

This is not a housing shortage this is a people glut.

Spot-on. It can be fixed by having fewer people or more houses (or less need for houses). It can not be fixed by any kind of help or subsidy for those currently unable to buy a house; and certainly not by kicking some off the housing ladder to make way for "key workers", i.e. the government's own people.

[Ardesco]

90% of them don’t pay enough tax to cover their own costs, it’s the top 10% from the US and Western EU that makes the figures look OK.

Where do you get this crap from ??

Go on then try and produce some facts that back that statement up. I think you will be surprised to find that the vast majority of immigrants actually do pay a decent amount of tax, the problem is the money they earn after tax invariably is sent home to thier own countries rather than getting spent over here.

[DodgyAgent]

The population should be 30-40 million in this country .

says who?

Whilst you lot are busy making personal attacks on this guy none of you seem to be challenging some of the assumptions upon which he (or she for that matter) is basing his arguments.

For instance there is no evidence to support the view that Polish immigrants are not paying their fair share of tax. Nor does he accept that this economic migrancy works both ways. Anyone remember Auf wiedersen pet when the brits travelled to Germany for work and sent their money home (except for Oz of course who pissed it up in germany)?

[Ardesco]

says who?

Whilst you lot are busy making personal attacks on this guy none of you seem to be challenging some of the assumptions upon which he (or she for that matter) is basing his arguments.

i point you to my above post

[Bagpuss]

More benefit.. 80% of aids patients are from overseas
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ry/3140147.stm

[DodgyAgent]

i point you to my above post

apart from you ardesco, you lonely bright star in a dark sky

[Ardesco]

apart from you ardesco, you lonely bright star in a dark sky

Ooooo an agent chatting me up!! the names of managers at my previous gigs, sure they are..

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!

Nearly had me there you cheeky monkey you

[Causus Deli]

The Home Office’s report International Migration and the United Kingdom: Patterns and Trends (2001) says: The impact of immigration in mitigating population ageing is widely acknowledged to be small because immigrants also age. For a substantial effect, net inflows of migrants would not only need to occur on an annual basis, but would have to rise continuously.

This demonstrates that immigration is not the answer to our pension fiasco. Also

The Council of Europe in its study Europe’s Population and Labour Market Beyond 2000, concluded: Migration flows cannot in future be used to reverse trends in population ageing and decline in most Council of Europe countries. The flows required would be too large and it would be impossible to integrate them into the economy and society. Such a policy would also require a sort of ‘fine tuning’ of the flows by age and gender which would be discriminatory and very difficult to manage.

And

The United Nations report Replacement Migration: is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Population concluded that the scale of migration needed to change the demographic profile of a whole country is so large as to be ‘out of reach’. To get an idea of how large, take the example of how much replacement migration would be needed to combat the effect of ageing in South Korea (one of the most rapidly ageing societies on earth): almost the entire population of the earth would have to emigrate to South Korea by 2050. This is not scaremongering, but the UN Population Division’s own
forecast.

And what does cheap labour lead to:-

Paul Barker of the Institute of Community Studies wrote in the London Evening Standard (17 May 2002): I was brought up just over the hills from Burnley, and it’s true that in South Lancashire and West Yorkshire the short-term drafting-in of immigrants to keep clapped-out textile mills going—rather than spend money on new capital equipment—was a social disaster. Before long, the mills closed anyway. Thousands of Asians were
dumped onto the unemployment register. So were thousands of whites. All were victims of an ill-thought-through policy.

If the net immigration of 2-300,000 a year had the same skill set and employability as the native population, their entrance into the UK would make most Britons worse off. But in a country as crowded as the UK there are significant diseconomies of scale on the national level. Congestion in London and the South East both on roads and public transport is a huge brake on growth. Attempts to control congestion—such as congestion charging in London, tight controls on parking, increasing fuel duties—also inevitably
curb economic activity because they prevent businesses doing what they would otherwise want to. Shortage of land on which to build factories, offices and retail centres, slows down business’s expansion plans. Exorbitant property prices—the result of high population and land shortage—also puts brakes on all businesses from entrepreneurial start-ups to large corporations. Britain has a booming airline industry which is being held back by the difficulty in finding anywhere to put more runways. The battle between land use and business development got so extreme in Newbury that Vodafone ended up threatening to pull its headquarters out of the town unless it could build new head offices on one site.

Most migration between Britain and other high-income countries is balanced, and the net immigration of 2-300,000 to the UK is entirely from the Third World and Eastern Europe. Such immigration can be extremely beneficial—the one-off immigration of highly educated, skilled and economically successful Ugandan Asians has definitely made a major contribution to the UK economy. But the current sustained high level of net immigration from low-income countries are people who, once here, demonstrably suffer higher unemployment and have lower incomes than the average population (and, in the case of most but not all ethnic minority communities, this relative poverty is also visited on the children of immigrants). It is difficult to see how that can do anything other than have a short-term downward impact on the GDP per capita. The Americans—who have 1.3 million immigrants a year, almost entirely from the Third World—have a term for it:
‘importing poverty’.

Many of these are taken from articles and from Mass Immigration by Anthony Browne. It is pretty clear that the net growth in the population is ‘importing poverty’ and this just cannot be good for us. The immigration of top earners (small proportion) who benefit us is offset by the emigration of our own top people (a sort of net zero exchange). The net increase is making us much worse off as they have a negative impact on GDP per capita and the additional negative impact on business detailed above.

[DodgyAgent]

The Home Office’s report International Migration and the United Kingdom: Patterns and Trends (2001) says: The impact of immigration in mitigating population ageing is widely acknowledged to be small because immigrants also age. .

Would you believe it?