UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
TKF said:
toohangry said:
Scuffers said:
don4l said:
Does your £230M include the cost of treating last year's patients?
After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
exactly the point I was making.After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
every year it's an additional sum of money, on top of the years before, ie. it's cumulative.
Crazy when you see it written there in black and white and definitely factual.
toohangry said:
TKF said:
toohangry said:
Scuffers said:
don4l said:
Does your £230M include the cost of treating last year's patients?
After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
exactly the point I was making.After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
every year it's an additional sum of money, on top of the years before, ie. it's cumulative.
Crazy when you see it written there in black and white and definitely factual.
Scuffers said:
HMG said:
Study-related visas (excluding student visitors) granted have risen 7% (+13,885 to 218,295). The 13,885 increase includes higher numbers for Chinese (+3,979, +7%), Brazilian (+2,649, +115%), Malaysian (+1,852, +23%) and Libyan (+1,550, +64%) nationals. There were falls in study visas granted to Pakistani (-2,511, -35%) and Indian (-1,711, -12%) nationals.
The higher numbers of visas granted corresponded to a 5% increase in university sponsored study visa applications (main applicants) to 167,105. There were falls in applications sponsored by other education sectors. The sponsored applications figures for further education fell 25% to 19,806, English Language schools fell 4% to 3,290 and independent schools fell 5% to 13,091.
Student visitors
There was an 8% increase in student visitor visas granted, to 78,109. Student visitors are normally only allowed to stay for up to 6 months (11 months for English Language schools) and cannot extend their stay. However, the latest data on passenger arrivals, including the majority of student visitors who do not need a visa, showed a fall of 12% in student visitor arrivals (falling 36,100 to 263,000 in 2013).
from here:The higher numbers of visas granted corresponded to a 5% increase in university sponsored study visa applications (main applicants) to 167,105. There were falls in applications sponsored by other education sectors. The sponsored applications figures for further education fell 25% to 19,806, English Language schools fell 4% to 3,290 and independent schools fell 5% to 13,091.
Student visitors
There was an 8% increase in student visitor visas granted, to 78,109. Student visitors are normally only allowed to stay for up to 6 months (11 months for English Language schools) and cannot extend their stay. However, the latest data on passenger arrivals, including the majority of student visitors who do not need a visa, showed a fall of 12% in student visitor arrivals (falling 36,100 to 263,000 in 2013).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigra...
so that's some 481,295 student and study related visas handed out between 28 August 2014 to 26 November 2014.
The link is titled:
"Immigration statistics, April to June 2014"
and says clearly
"All data below relate to the year ending June 2014"
Its also shows student related visas in that year where 218,295 study and 78,109 student visa. Totalling 296,404 visas in the year.
So your comments have the wrong period and the wrong numbers!!!!
blindswelledrat said:
When you say things like this you completely ignore the value that the person's work affords the economy over jobs that wouldn't get done anyway.
Take a low level worker like a tradesman. According to you, because he only pays £7k pa in tax and consumes £8k of services, then he is a drain on our economy. You completely ignore the fact that without foreigners our construction industry would be about 1/10th of its size and our economy would be infinitely worse off, if not crippled. The salaries of many British nationals are utterly reliant on the profits created by that immigrant's work, as are the profits of all our large companies. This applies to every industry and is multiplied many-fold when you get to senior high-earning immigrants. Your simplistic view of basic economics is even worse than your ability to spell the word 'cheap'.
foreign workers make up 90% of the construction industry ? wild claim right there. Take a low level worker like a tradesman. According to you, because he only pays £7k pa in tax and consumes £8k of services, then he is a drain on our economy. You completely ignore the fact that without foreigners our construction industry would be about 1/10th of its size and our economy would be infinitely worse off, if not crippled. The salaries of many British nationals are utterly reliant on the profits created by that immigrant's work, as are the profits of all our large companies. This applies to every industry and is multiplied many-fold when you get to senior high-earning immigrants. Your simplistic view of basic economics is even worse than your ability to spell the word 'cheap'.
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
Do you ever read posts? I have shown you a report on those living with HIV in the UK. Based on that even if your figure of 40% of black Africans living with HIV in the UK are health tourists (this seems very unlikely) at £23k per person per annum the total costs is £230M.
QED.
As for insurance its needed for UK tourist visits since they have limited access to the NHS. Emergence treatment only and costs should be recovered.
As for immigrants you are wrong many countires offer health cover to immigrants who work in the country.
Does your £230M include the cost of treating last year's patients?QED.
As for insurance its needed for UK tourist visits since they have limited access to the NHS. Emergence treatment only and costs should be recovered.
As for immigrants you are wrong many countires offer health cover to immigrants who work in the country.
After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
My post is also clear this is the total number of people living with HIV in the UK. There is no cumulative effect this is all the people in UK living with HIV during that year. This will be a good guide to annual costs. Scuffers suggested the annual costs of health tourism for HIV alone would be more than £1.48bn I showed he is likely to be wrong.
wc98 said:
blindswelledrat said:
When you say things like this you completely ignore the value that the person's work affords the economy over jobs that wouldn't get done anyway.
Take a low level worker like a tradesman. According to you, because he only pays £7k pa in tax and consumes £8k of services, then he is a drain on our economy. You completely ignore the fact that without foreigners our construction industry would be about 1/10th of its size and our economy would be infinitely worse off, if not crippled. The salaries of many British nationals are utterly reliant on the profits created by that immigrant's work, as are the profits of all our large companies. This applies to every industry and is multiplied many-fold when you get to senior high-earning immigrants. Your simplistic view of basic economics is even worse than your ability to spell the word 'cheap'.
foreign workers make up 90% of the construction industry ? wild claim right there. Take a low level worker like a tradesman. According to you, because he only pays £7k pa in tax and consumes £8k of services, then he is a drain on our economy. You completely ignore the fact that without foreigners our construction industry would be about 1/10th of its size and our economy would be infinitely worse off, if not crippled. The salaries of many British nationals are utterly reliant on the profits created by that immigrant's work, as are the profits of all our large companies. This applies to every industry and is multiplied many-fold when you get to senior high-earning immigrants. Your simplistic view of basic economics is even worse than your ability to spell the word 'cheap'.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
no argument with those figures. how will they look in the next 15 years from 2012 onwards with the extra contribution of romanian big issue sellers ? i am not suggesting all immigration is bad,we do however have to be more selective in the future so we do not add to the current problems.Mrr T said:
don4l said:
Mrr T said:
Do you ever read posts? I have shown you a report on those living with HIV in the UK. Based on that even if your figure of 40% of black Africans living with HIV in the UK are health tourists (this seems very unlikely) at £23k per person per annum the total costs is £230M.
QED.
As for insurance its needed for UK tourist visits since they have limited access to the NHS. Emergence treatment only and costs should be recovered.
As for immigrants you are wrong many countires offer health cover to immigrants who work in the country.
Does your £230M include the cost of treating last year's patients?QED.
As for insurance its needed for UK tourist visits since they have limited access to the NHS. Emergence treatment only and costs should be recovered.
As for immigrants you are wrong many countires offer health cover to immigrants who work in the country.
After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
My post is also clear this is the total number of people living with HIV in the UK. There is no cumulative effect this is all the people in UK living with HIV during that year. This will be a good guide to annual costs. Scuffers suggested the annual costs of health tourism for HIV alone would be more than £1.48bn I showed he is likely to be wrong.
s2art said:
We dont know. All we can tell is that the number of people newly diagnosed is approx 6000 per year, and that is down from the peak a few years ago. What the cumulative totals are for immigrants is unknown.
I agree we cannot tell the number of immigrants but the report I quote is the total number living with HIV in the UK. So its the cumulative up to 2014. From that we can see any suggestion HIV health tourism is costing over £1.48Bn a year as just rubbish.blindswelledrat said:
PRTVR said:
Do you know how much care costs for the elderly, £700 pounds a week, how much are the immigrants earning, how much benefits are they receiving, how much tax will have to be paid to cover their own costs, I really do not think it has been thought through, so long as we can get a cheep builder everything's fine, but somebody has to pay in the end taxes will have to rise or services will suffer,
it would be intresting to see the figures for tax returns from immigrants against the numbers that were here.
When you say things like this you completely ignore the value that the person's work affords the economy over jobs that wouldn't get done anyway.it would be intresting to see the figures for tax returns from immigrants against the numbers that were here.
Take a low level worker like a tradesman. According to you, because he only pays £7k pa in tax and consumes £8k of services, then he is a drain on our economy. You completely ignore the fact that without foreigners our construction industry would be about 1/10th of its size and our economy would be infinitely worse off, if not crippled. The salaries of many British nationals are utterly reliant on the profits created by that immigrant's work, as are the profits of all our large companies. This applies to every industry and is multiplied many-fold when you get to senior high-earning immigrants. Your simplistic view of basic economics is even worse than your ability to spell the word 'cheap'.
PRTVR said:
if we get a high earning immigrant worker, their original country loses their contribution
Not entirely, many work in the UK (or Germany or we'v) for a few years then return home, others send regular payments back home to relatives. There is no use being qualified to do something specific if there are no jobs available locally. Also more selfishly if the UK gains from these skilled migrants and the rest of the EU is somewhat diminished how is that a bad thing for the UK, leaving kipper paranoia aside?anonymous said:
[redacted]
You cant be serious! Discredited report, and well out of date:'Schoolboy errors" in UCL report claiming fiscal benefit to immigration'
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/PRimmigration.html
Funkycoldribena said:
But we need more,theres only 11000 foreigners in our jails,an average of 85 applicants per job vacancy,and only 1 in 6 have absconded.
I don't understand what this means. The unemployment rate in the UK is the lowest since 2008http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
The employment rate is the highest since records began (1971).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This might be of interest to some.http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=i...
A study from America that puts the gain for an immigrant at $7400 over his life in America, this is without thing like health care and child benefits etc that I would imagine wood change the total to a negative.
toohangry said:
Scuffers said:
don4l said:
Does your £230M include the cost of treating last year's patients?
After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
exactly the point I was making.After a few years, the true cost could easily exceed £2Bn.
every year it's an additional sum of money, on top of the years before, ie. it's cumulative.
Daniel Hannan recently pointed out that lefties always try to shut down the debate when they feel that they are losing.
Your post really fits well with his thesis. It is just pointless noise that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
You are not demonstrating your intelligence, and you know it. So, why are you pretending to be thick?
Is TKF your hero?
Scuffers said:
968 said:
So where did you get your 35% figure from then?
already answered that. (I appreciate reading is obviously not one of your strong points...)968 said:
Also, why can you not respond to a poster without abusing them?
have a guess?you are just as bad as the other notable idiots on here, you CBA to read, and the attention span of a goldfish, and seem to be totally incapable of understanding quite simple concepts.
I am sure now you will revert to character and bang on about me being some kind of Homophobe?
Reluctant to enter this fray but what puzzles me is that one of the problems facing the country for some time is that, for whatever reason, the differential between social benefits and low wage jobs has been too narrow. There are some who want to make that jump into work for numerous reasons but others who simply don't, and some who would even lose out financially.
Now if we want to deal with that it doesn't make sense to import a lot of workers to do those low paid jobs and make the problem even more intractable.
Recently migration watch, for all their faults, commented on the issues raised in the ONS Eu worker labour force survey which showed that ~70% of EU10 workers were in low skilled jobs, compared to a much much lower figure for EU14 workers.
Even the House of Lords report from 2008? was clear that it was possibly much better to let market forces resolve this problem with insufficient differential even though oversupply of low skilled workers is good for businesses. Heavy paraphrasing from memory there admittedly.
Now if we want to deal with that it doesn't make sense to import a lot of workers to do those low paid jobs and make the problem even more intractable.
Recently migration watch, for all their faults, commented on the issues raised in the ONS Eu worker labour force survey which showed that ~70% of EU10 workers were in low skilled jobs, compared to a much much lower figure for EU14 workers.
Even the House of Lords report from 2008? was clear that it was possibly much better to let market forces resolve this problem with insufficient differential even though oversupply of low skilled workers is good for businesses. Heavy paraphrasing from memory there admittedly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff