How much is the Referendum Campaign influencing you?

[JC Footy Genius]

The pensions question is interesting. I thought many on the Remain side said they want to stay in the EU so young people had more opportunity to work and live on the continent therefore reducing the numbers of young people in the UK. Wouldn't this mean less tax being paid here? Overall less support for pensions.

On the 'we need young immigrants to fund our pensions' argument.

Claims that immigration is needed to support the provision of pensions and care for the elderly are deeply misleading. As immigrants tend to be young, their arrival does reduce the average age of the population. But to maintain any substantial and enduring effect on the age-structure requires a constant increase in the number of immigrants, leading to a huge growth in population. The reason is that immigrants themselves age and then require still more immigrants to compensate for the larger number of older people. Keeping the Potential Support Ratio (PSR) to present levels would require a growing but variable number of immigrants peaking at 1.2 million per year before 2051 and up to 5 million per year later in the century. That would increase UK population to 119 million by 2051 and 303 million by the end of the century and so on to the stratosphere. A wide range of expert studies has come to a similar conclusion.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/document/179

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The pensions question is interesting. I thought many on the Remain side said they want to stay in the EU so young people had more opportunity to work and live on the continent therefore reducing the numbers of young people in the UK. Wouldn't this mean less tax being paid here? Overall less support for pensions.

On the 'we need young immigrants to fund our pensions' argument.

Claims that immigration is needed to support the provision of pensions and care for the elderly are deeply misleading. As immigrants tend to be young, their arrival does reduce the average age of the population. But to maintain any substantial and enduring effect on the age-structure requires a constant increase in the number of immigrants, leading to a huge growth in population. The reason is that immigrants themselves age and then require still more immigrants to compensate for the larger number of older people. Keeping the Potential Support Ratio (PSR) to present levels would require a growing but variable number of immigrants peaking at 1.2 million per year before 2051 and up to 5 million per year later in the century. That would increase UK population to 119 million by 2051 and 303 million by the end of the century and so on to the stratosphere. A wide range of expert studies has come to a similar conclusion.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/document/179

I assume that comparable population growth figures are required in all other major economies. If we need 303 million people by the end of the century, so too will Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc etc.

The problem then becomes different (and simpler) ... there aren't enough people in the world.

 

[cunning fergus]

Several points ...

I continue to work, even though I have passed state retirement age.

The only time I have ever played golf regularly (on a municipal golf course, not a private members' club) was when I was 18 years old.

"Relying on the state" is more than just receiving benefits. I rely on the state, because I need the NHS to keep me going. They do a brilliant job that started with them funding an 11 hour life-saving operation, followed by three weeks recuperation in a world-class hospital, that means I will be hanging around for YEARS, needing further attention. Yes, I guess this means that I am relying on the state for my own ends. All I wish, though, is that everyone gets that opportunity, should the need arise.

I've paid taxes all my working life, but I know that I am now taking out more than I am putting in - and it is young people who are funding this.

That's all very well, of course but then many people continue to work passed their retirement date because they have no choice. They will work till they drop dead.

As for young people paying to fund the NHS and other state benefits don't make me laugh.

To be a net contributor you need to be earning circa 39k p.a. and relatively speaking that is unlikely to be the young. Or migrants by the way, as C4 this week demonstrated with their analysis that 88% of those working in the UK were earning 21k or less.

It's those who earn above 39k you need to be grateful to, and if you are going to defer your vote to anyone it's them.

 

[cunning fergus]

What on earth are you on about? Of course I'm not saying this.

You are the one linking a dividend on an investment with the cost of labour, and referencing that to "poncing".

If workers are being adequately compensated for their labour, and their company pays a dividend who is poncing?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I assume that comparable population growth figures are required in all other major economies. If we need 303 million people by the end of the century, so too will Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc etc.

The problem then becomes different (and simpler) ... there aren't enough people in the world.

Yes I think that is the case which means we should be looking at a range of solutions .Increasing workforce participation, we still have 1.6 million people unemployed and over time increasing the pension age.

 

[Bakero]

But that is in spite of the EU not because of it.

Corbyn to his credit was warning about the reach of TTIP years ago as were the unions.

There is not a country that was against it, whilst France has now come out against Hollande was all for it as far back as February.

That is the point, it was only because of popular will by activists that the true scale of TTIP has become public.

The Tories would not be able to do this in the UK because it would have to be passed by Parliament.

It was far better to pass this through the EU out of the gaze of the public........which is why it was.

It's (apparent) failure has nothing to do with the EU, far from it...........they wanted to impose a secrecy order for 30 years!!!

Fair point. The tendency to make decisions like these at the EU level is worrying. Though I believe our Parliament would've signed up to ttip anyway, at least that way it would've happened in the ope after parliamentary debate.

For me, that's why we need EU reform to create greater transparency. I'm not against the idea of transnational decision making but currently it seems national governments use the EU to distance themselves from the big decisions. The EU doesn't force decisions upon us, rather decisions are made in Brussels at the behest of national governments to hide them from public scrutiny. It's a shame that remainers have avoided the topic of transparency and reform. I guess economic arguments are easier to sell.

I read a good pro-Brexit article on spiked earlier. My phone won't let me post a link for some reason but google 'spiked EU mirage' and you'll find it.

 

[larus]

I had a conversation with my daughter recently as she's reached voting age. She was saying how all of her friends were remainers and she thought that reflected the feelings of young voters today.

She said if older voters are choosing what to vote thinking of their children then they need to vote stay as that's what their children would want.

Her generation are open to multi-cultural societies and diversity much more their parents and especially their grand-parents.

And that to me is the problem. If the young are looking at this as though it's down to racism, etc., then they are wrong. This is, for me, about democracy. Pure and simple. The Commision is unelected and and we, as voters, do not have any input/vote on the rules/regulations which they pass.

Also, the fact that the EU recently stated that if the Far Right guy had been elected as President, they would have done everything in their power to marginalise him. To me that's a sign of all that's wog with the EU. Whatever the decision is of a country, that cannot be ignored by the EU elite as it goes against the 'Holy Grail' of ever closer union (POLITCAL jargon for more centralised control and less accountability).

So, just because the youth are being misled as to wht the real issues are, that's not a good reason to vote for what they want.

 

[looney]

I assume that comparable population growth figures are required in all other major economies. If we need 303 million people by the end of the century, so too will Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc etc.

The problem then becomes different (and simpler) ... there aren't enough people in the world.

The key point you are missing is that you are dependent on other peoples children to in part or mainly look after you in old age.

Its like creating a new unsustainable problem to cover another problem, low birth rates.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The key point you are missing is that you are dependent on other peoples children to in part or mainly look after you in old age.

I thought that was the key point I was making (and being criticised for).

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Our fishermen would be able to fish our own waters may be another one, and one more might be our courts and judges could actually decide how to deal with criminals. I could add more but can't be arsed.

Know the feeling it's a long list, two more reasons.

Paying £1.2 Billion to Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo to help them join the EU.

Having to find and fund extra school places equivalent to building 27 new average-sized secondary schools or 100 new primary schools to cope for just one years immigration from the European Economic area (2014).

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Know the feeling it's a long list, two more reasons.

Paying £1.2 Billion to Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo to help them join the EU.

Having to find and fund extra school places equivalent to building 27 new average-sized secondary schools or 100 new primary schools to cope for just one years immigration from the European Economic area (2014).

It just doesn't make sense does it, that is the problem.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

To be a net contributor you need to be earning circa 39k p.a.

Not quite. This 39k is a well known figure for a current net contributor. It ignores anything and everything prior to earning this amount. And that's a lot as it includes years of education and years of taking before you got to 39. The actual overall figure is a lot higher. To end your life an absolute and overall net contributor you will have needed to earn a hell of a lot. Carry on "poncing"

 

[Norman Potting]

Frankly both sides have disgraced themselves.
Disingenuous is the polite word.
Some might be tempted to use the phrase lying *****.
Hardly unexpected given the characters involved but sad nonetheless that almost all seem incapable of a reasoned and rational debate based on truth rather than deception and downright dishonesty

Spot on - I posted a spoof item from the "Daily Mash" a few weeks back which considered that many would like to see both sides lose! All I have heard is variations on ".....If you vote (insert YES/NO here) really bad things will happen....".

 

[cunning fergus]

Fair point. The tendency to make decisions like these at the EU level is worrying. Though I believe our Parliament would've signed up to ttip anyway, at least that way it would've happened in the ope after parliamentary debate.

For me, that's why we need EU reform to create greater transparency. I'm not against the idea of transnational decision making but currently it seems national governments use the EU to distance themselves from the big decisions. The EU doesn't force decisions upon us, rather decisions are made in Brussels at the behest of national governments to hide them from public scrutiny. It's a shame that remainers have avoided the topic of transparency and reform. I guess economic arguments are easier to sell.

I read a good pro-Brexit article on spiked earlier. My phone won't let me post a link for some reason but google 'spiked EU mirage' and you'll find it.

Then to some extent we agree.

I think the Tories would love to implement TTIP, sadly I think so would many Labour MPs.

However, I also think there would be enough opposition from the public at large and no doubt some MPs to hold off the very worst affects.

This is the point about the way the EU works, and it's why we are being sold a pup now.

A vote for in is not a vote for reform, its a vote for the status quo. I think Virafakis, Lucas and McDonnell all campaigning for remain on this basis are misguided.

Nobody who has power in the EU or in the Uk for that matter will be saying (on the day following a successful remain vote), "yes, we understand what the British public are asking for, we will act on this to democratise the EU and be more transparent".

A yes vote for in is the green light for more austerity, less workers rights, more free market capitalism and further dislocation for the British people and executive power.

Unless you are a Tory therefore it's merely opting for (false) hope over reality..........

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Not quite. This 39k is a well known figure for a current net contributor. It ignores anything and everything prior to earning this amount. And that's a lot as it includes years of education and years of taking before you got to 39. The actual overall figure is a lot higher. To end your life an absolute and overall net contributor you will have needed to earn a hell of a lot. Carry on "poncing"

... and, more to the point ... playing around with average numbers (whether these represent earnings or the average funded needs of all individuals in society) ignores the fact that different people have different levels of need.

We're in danger of deluding ourselves that there are simple mathematical "facts" out there that will win the argument.

 

[Hampster Gull]

And that to me is the problem. If the young are looking at this as though it's down to racism, etc., then they are wrong. This is, for me, about democracy. Pure and simple. The Commision is unelected and and we, as voters, do not have any input/vote on the rules/regulations which they pass.

Also, the fact that the EU recently stated that if the Far Right guy had been elected as President, they would have done everything in their power to marginalise him. To me that's a sign of all that's wog with the EU. Whatever the decision is of a country, that cannot be ignored by the EU elite as it goes against the 'Holy Grail' of ever closer union (POLITCAL jargon for more centralised control and less accountability).

 

[Hampster Gull]

To many people are relying on the state for their own ends, it should only be there for the poor working class...........I doubt you would fall into that category.

it should be there for anyone who genuinely needs it, regardless of background. And this ongoing obsession with class is very dated but i guess you us it to serve your class war propaganda

 

[cunning fergus]

Not quite. This 39k is a well known figure for a current net contributor. It ignores anything and everything prior to earning this amount. And that's a lot as it includes years of education and years of taking before you got to 39. The actual overall figure is a lot higher. To end your life an absolute and overall net contributor you will have needed to earn a hell of a lot. Carry on "poncing"

On the contrary, this was based on analysis by the IFS and accountants, who as we know are beyond reproach.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...he-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

It is this very basic fact that I don't understand the perpetual refrain of how the UK taxpayer benefits from our newly arrived hard working migrants?

The IFS states that the burden of tax falls disproportionately on just 300,000 high earners.

If 88% of the 2m EU migrants working in the UK are earning less than 21k, as reported by C4 this week then the numbers just don't add up. Not least when we know that the children of migrants are creating more demand for school places (impacting on schools) and the UK's birth rate (impacting on the NHS) is higher than ever due to migrants.

It makes far more sense that these migrant workers generate profit for their employers, I can understand that.

But then those advocating free markets would have to admit that the policy of free movement is primarily to benefit employers.

Doesn't sound so noble does it?

 

[cunning fergus]

it should be there for anyone who genuinely needs it, regardless of background. And this ongoing obsession with class is very dated but i guess you us it to serve your class war propaganda

It is provided to "anyone" that's the problem.

Anyone shouldn't have access to the NHS............broadly speaking it should be for British citizens.

If you are not a British citizen or long term resident you can pay for you treatment or take out insurance.

 

[Hampster Gull]

It is provided to "anyone" that's the problem.

Anyone shouldn't have access to the NHS............broadly speaking it should be for British citizens.

If you are not a British citizen or long term resident you can pay for you treatment or take out insurance.

You said it should "only be for the poor working class". Very divisive