Shocking immigration hysteria

[KentPhilip]

People who's contribution is positive means those who pay more tax than they receive in benefits and other services. This has nothing to do with whether they earn an average wage or pay an average amount of tax, as that has no bearing on what they cost, and in fact as we're running a defecit it's quite possible mathematically that no one at all would qualify. We can't tell, because we don't measure the cost that accurately.

This is incoherent rhetoric backed by a fuzzy minded approach to sums. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. You quite literally don't make any ******* sense.

I mean an insurance-averaged cost. i.e. if you were to ask a non-profit-making insurance company to quote a premium to provide NHS and other services to a person then this will on average be the amount of tax paid by the average person. Resulting in no net gain or loss to the exchequer.

The deficit is another issue, and indeed you are correct that it increases the required earnings that foreigners would need to make in order to play their part.

[KentPhilip]

Ask the government of the day. The fact is an ageing population needs more healthcare people than we have, where ever they are from and whatever they cost. It also needs capital expenditure that costs money.

Requires more healthcare people than we currently have trained. If we restricted immigration, and encouraged the ageing population to pay for their own care if they can afford it (in addition to existing NHS services) then this would boost demand for home-grown healthcare professionals, increasing rates of pay, and therefore increasing the number of British people who will train for this work.

[SpontaneousOrder]

We have a moral duty to support British citizens and give them a basic standard of living

Why? what's your line of reasoning to arrive at this conclusion? And why does that supposed moral duty only extend as far as British citizens?

[KentPhilip]

I'm a British citizen yet I haven't paid any NI contributions nor tax in 25 years in the UK and previously I only paid around 5 years worth, does this apply to me?

I don't know. You may have a point.
I think there is a case for saying the British should pay UK tax on worldwide earnings for just this eventuality.

The immigrant didn't undercut them on pay rates, the UK management weren't willing to pay what a UK citizen wanted.

But UK management were only able to do that because the government let in the immigrants. If they hadn't then supply vs demand would have kept rates of pay high.

[KentPhilip]

Why? what's your line of reasoning to arrive at this conclusion? And why does that supposed moral duty only extend as far as British citizens?

Well moral arguments are generally personal things incapable of rational explanation. But I would imagine few of us would be happy to see starving beggars on every street corner, hence we have the welfare state.

I think that moral duty extends worldwide, and that each nation's governments should be responsible for collecting taxes and paying for the welfare of their respective citizens in accordance with the cultural norms and expectations of each country.

[doodab]

I mean an insurance-averaged cost. i.e. if you were to ask a non-profit-making insurance company to quote a premium to provide NHS and other services to a person then this will on average be the amount of tax paid by the average person. Resulting in no net gain or loss to the exchequer.

Riiiiight. So it might be roughly the amount of tax that you think ought to be paid, which would apparently equal the average cost of a person to the state. So how do we factor in corporations? Excise duties? VAT? Risk factors such as smoking? What about the fact that someone who spends puts money through the multiplier, increasing overall tax take, whereas one who saves doesn't?

[doodab]

But UK management were only able to do that because the government let in the immigrants. If they hadn't then supply vs demand would have kept rates of pay high.

And supply low. The NHS has to compete in the labour market remember, it's not the only source of jobs.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Well moral arguments are generally personal things incapable of rational explanation.

Well i completely disagree with you there, BUT...

You have just explained to us exactly why we shouldn't consider any of your input to be more than spam.

Why on earth should I or anyone take any notice of you, or consider anything you have to say seriously, when it's all "incapable of rational explanation"?

[darmstadt]

I don't know. You may have a point.
I think there is a case for saying the British should pay UK tax on worldwide earnings for just this eventuality.

A bit like the USA then which is why a lot of Americans who move to work abroad renounce their USA citizenship.

A couple of facts about the NHS:

- Foreign nationals always receive treatment free at the time of use for emergencies. Pretty much par for the course in most countries, bills come later
- Foreign nationals also receive free treatment if they have been legally resident in the UK for 12 months. How do you become legally resident? I think you'll find that discussed in other threads
- Foreign nationals also receive free treatment if they have recently arrived to take up permanent residence
- Foreign nationals also receive free treatment if they are claiming asylum or have other legal resident status
- EU, and countries with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement, citizens are also entitled to free treatment by using the European Health Insurance Card. You would need that card if you went and worked in another EU country so no real difference there, eh?
- Foreign nationals may be subject to an interview to establish their nationality and residence status, which must be resolved before non-emergency treatment can commence. Patients who do not qualify for free treatment are asked to pay in advance, or to sign a written undertaking to pay.

BTW, the NHS consists of 4 different systems, one for each different country in the UK, each of which acts independently and theoretically they could treat a person from another country in the UK as if they were an immigrant although they don't.

[KentPhilip]

Riiiiight. So it might be roughly the amount of tax that you think ought to be paid, which would apparently equal the average cost of a person to the state. So how do we factor in corporations? Excise duties? VAT? Risk factors such as smoking? What about the fact that someone who spends puts money through the multiplier, increasing overall tax take, whereas one who saves doesn't?

Corporation tax and VAT don't change the reasoning - immigrants who earn less spend less, therefore resulting in a lower contribution to corporation tax paid by the corporations and VAT than that coming from higher earners. Given that average earners and spenders are fiscally neutral, then lower earners and spenders must contribute a nett deduction.

Smoking increases NHS costs. But people who smoke die younger so reducing state pension costs.