Who was right?: 576% rise in number of NI numbers handed to Romania/Bulgaria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Why have you quoted me saying that the numbers of people immigrating from Romania and Bulgaria didn't increase when 1) the news in this thread doesn't prove otherwise, and 2) it's completely irrelevant?

---

*shakes head* WHAT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

You're right, I should have worded that one differently. We have more or less the same number of GP's per thousand, but they're doing much more than they used to. They work many more hours than they used to and see many more people than they used to.

So while it can be said we have the same number of GP's per capita, it completely disregards the other factors which are negatively affected.

---

If we have the same number of GP’s per thousand that means the ratio is the same as before meaning the workload should be roughly the same since there will have been an increase in the number of GP’s to maintain the ratio.

Quote:

---

For every article you link to which states immigration has been found to be good, there will equally be an article that can be linked to which states the exact opposite.

---

Let’s not conflate issues here. When we’re talking about immigration in this thread it is referring specifically to that within the EU since that is the only form of immigration we don’t have control over and the thread title is referring to Romania and Bulgaria. The first source you’ve linked is in regards to Non-European migrants. The second source is about issues other than the economic impact of immigration, which is the only aspect I’ve commented on within this thread. Your third source reaffirms what I’ve previously said about immigration providing an economic benefit (from within the EU) and your fourth and final source is in regards to water shortages. Whilst there are undoubtedly negative factors to mass immigration that I’m not disputing, the economic benefit they provide (which you referred to as “rubbish”) is clearly heavily supported from a number of differing sources. Clearly there are other issues such as housing not keeping up with the growing population and other concerns regarding infrastructure.

Quote:

---

"Adding to the economy" is a complete farce. The money added needs to be spent in exchange for the required increase in provision of services.

---

“migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services (that’s not true of every migrant of course, but collectively they make a net contribution)” from the last of my sources in my previous post.

Quote:

---

There was another study that states immigrants were a net contributor to the economy, but after additional spending had been deducted from additional income, the actual contribution to the economy equated to 58p per person per month. This also didn't take into account any required increase of provision of services. Extra hospital beds alone cost considerably more than this, and that's still not taking into account transport, water or energy infrastructure, all of which is subsidised by the taxpayer. Hospital beds we definitely have less of per capita. (See world data bank).
Source: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.5

So even the reports which state it is good for the economy, fail to take every aspect into consideration, even every financial aspect.

---

Reading the methodology from that source it seems they have added British Citizens (British-born children of migrants) to their figures which is obviously going to skew their results?

Quote:

---

You're also making the mistake of, like everybody else, assuming it is a black and white issue. It is not good or bad, there are many different factors, some of which are good and some of which are bad. You cannot even argue that it is "good overall". How do you determine which factors are more important?

---

I’m not making that mistake and I never said that it is “good overall”. If you read through my post again you’ll see that I said immigration is economically good. I haven’t commented on immigration as a whole which you are claiming here.

Quote:

---

Additionally, for every positive report there is a negative one to speak of. None of your reports mention the increased strain on housing.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

A person on the national average wage of the time could afford to buy a 2 bedroom flat in London 20 years ago, today on the national average wage you wouldn't even be eligible for a studio flat via an affordable housing scheme in London.

---

Generally the people buying up property in London are wealthy and would be able to move here and buy property under stricter immigration policies (such as the Australian points system I believe Dan supports). Obviously in the poorer parts that’s not the case (but a worker on the national average wage would be able to afford a mortgage in one of those parts). The extreme prices in London are due to it being a financial capital of the world and not because Romanians and Bulgarians are driving up the prices. That’s not to say that immigration doesn’t affect housing prices at all because I’m sure it does to some extent but in regards to your example of London that’s not something which would have been prevented by stricter immigration policies unless you wanted to limit the amount of wealthy and educated migrants coming here, and when people are discussing immigration policies it tends to be the poorer blue collared workers they want to limit and not the ultra-rich Sheikhs from the House of Saud or Russian Oligarchs who buy up property in Belgravia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

*shakes head* WHAT

---

This thread is saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have applied for National Insurance numbers.

This thread is not saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have moved to the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

This thread is saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have applied for National Insurance numbers.

This thread is not saying more Romanians and Bulgarians have moved to the UK.

---

Oh my god. So they are sitting back home in Romania and Bulgaria applying for British NI numbers for the hell of it? No actually, why did I even ask because the logic here is so warped you'll probably say yes and ask for me to prove otherwise. I'd have more luck reasoning with the patients in Ashworth Hospital.

They are immigrants, they have moved to the United Kingdom thanks to EU open borders and you lot were wrong. Now admit it and show some humility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

I answered your post in the same order in which you made it. Your first point was about Dan's comment; my first point was also about Dan's comment and it was reasoned with "because Dan's post". I apologise for your lack of comprehension.

---

Apology accepted, it's still not a response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

I will further simplify everything to assist you with understanding basic logic; starting by breaking this post up into multiple quotes as your cognitive ability to differentiate between subjects seems to be lacking.

---

You mean by quoting and writing a post properly, yeah that would be useful rather than plucking random arguments out of the air and pretending I've said them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

Then why did you quote the point I made as if to disagree with it, if you never disagreed with it?

---

I do tend to correct people when they erroneously attempt to put words in my mouth. I would do this even if you said I'd said something that I really do believe, because it's still misrepresentation of my posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

Nobody is debating whether supply and demand "is a thing that exists". The point made is that oversupply of workers has a positive impact for business owners, and a negative impact for the average working citizen.

I'm glad to see you agree with the conclusion that it is good for employers and bad for employees. I didn't realise you were an employer yourself.

---

The last bit was from your post and I left it in by accident, would have thought you'd get that if your comprehension is as great as you seem to think, and yes well done on realising that not everyone is a winner in business

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

You're failing to understand that the issue isn't black and white. It is not communism vs capitalism. You can have private companies which are owned completely by the employees (John Lewis for example). I do not disagree that people running businesses should not keep a profit for themselves and make money while doing so, but there has to be a degree of fairness in the way wealth is spread. For example: reduce profits of £1m by 10% to pay all staff an extra £2 an hour. That's still a significant £900k profit for the business, and all staff are comfortably better off.

Your opinion is businesses should exploit their staff and keep as much money for themselves as possible?

---

Yep. Businesses can do what they want within the law; there is no obligation for them to give away anything that they earn just for the fun of it. Might not be "fair" in the eyes of a Marxist but it's totally fair in the eyes of the real business world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

I fail to understand what you are trying to claim with your point about trading units and computer games; would you care to elaborate on this in comprehensible English?

---

Basically you are completely and utterly failing (you got that bit right) to take into consideration that this is not a simulation of scripted responses, this is real life. People act and react as people, not as "the worker" and "the employer", and trying to offset these groups against each other in some generalised way is of no value whatsoever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

Because unless you yourself own a business, the argument you're making is completely deluded.

Do you make any gain by earning a few thousand less per year than you could be paid if wages had risen at the same rate of the cost of living?
Do you make any gain from anybody in your family earning less in their daily job than they might if wages were 20% higher? Unless your gains are "spiritual", I don't think so; some of us live in the real world.

You are making the argument of somebody you are not, which is why you are placed with those people. And if, as you say, you are nothing like those people, it would seem you have been beguiled by the arguments of these people.

---

Excellent. You are literally saying that I am only ever allowed to have the opinion of those within my set class and rank, or else I'm deluded. My views do not come from wherever I might make the most personal gain, they come from logic and reality. My your reasoning, I should also want white supremacy and state-approved chauvinism because that would serve me well on a personal level. Also in your world of reasoning there is absolutely no scope for agreement anywhere, because you appear to be advocating for everyone looking out for themselves and so unless you magically achieve flat equality nothing will ever be agreed upon. Quite useless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

Then what the hell are you here to argue about?

---

Numbers and where they come from... it's quite easy to work that out if you read my words instead of making them up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

See my point before last. You're literally rehearsing the things you have heard politicians say without considering the actual implications on society or you personally.

---

Am I? Pretty sure I don't actually know what half the politicians are saying and am just analysing the data I see, but thanks for trying to tell me what I think and thanks again for proving that you have no idea what a rational argument is by claiming I should be thinking about my own personal gain over what makes sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

This is the most ironic and hypocritical thing you have said. Nobody has misquoted you, nobody has lied about what you have said. In fact you were the one who deliberately misquoted a statistic from Dan in the first place. Also see my response to the second quote in this post.

---

You're still doing it so congrats on the continued lies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

Again more irony. Putting aside "siding with" someone, you, are the one who in this thread misquoted statistics, and argued against some of my points without actually disagreeing with them. I would call that picking sides.

You may or may not be picking sides, but to me it looks like you'll try to say anything to counter the anti-immigration argument even if that means pretending you haven't understood what someone has said.

---

Then you're blind as well as stupid and selfish. If (again) you try reading what I've put instead of what you want me to have said, you'd see that what I argue with is things and people being misrepresented; my own personal views on the matter hardly ever come into play. I am not fighting the anti-immigration argument as a whole, I am against people misusing data and coming to utterly crap conclusions for its sake. The statistic I supposedly misquoted is one that was placed alongside all the other data originally by Dan, not something I plucked out of nowhere to demonise anyone, and it being comparatively incomplete by a couple of months still doesn't make up for the actual point that I was making, unless you believe that 150,000 Romanians came to the UK between september and december. You're looking for anything that doesn't match up with your rhetoric to claim as being an opponent of your overall views which is simply not what I am

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

In this thread, Tom has been defending the argument for mass immigration by claiming it has economic benefits, therefore Dan's claim as to Tom's motive is not unfounded.

---

No I haven't. Again not reading properly. What I have been saying is that people who are >>>>ALREADY HERE<<<< applying for the proper ability to work is better than them having restricted access to employment and going the illegal route. I have not said that everyone should come here for free, I have not said that I think all immigrants are worth their weight in gold to the country, I have not said that I want open borders with the world, I have made a basic statement about numbers and you have turned it into a massive slanderfest somehow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

If we have the same number of GP’s per thousand that means the ratio is the same as before meaning the workload should be roughly the same since there will have been an increase in the number of GP’s to maintain the ratio.

---

Your logic is not flawed, but you haven't been reading the news as this isn't the case. I cannot give you the reasons behind the increase in workload, but some might speculate as to people seeing a doctor for the first time where they haven't had access to free medical care previously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31550423

This is also attributed to the closure of A&E's, and the change from NHS Direct to NHS 111 which is contracted out to a supplier which hires people without medical qualifications to operate the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Let’s not conflate issues here. When we’re talking about immigration in this thread it is referring specifically to that within the EU since that is the only form of immigration we don’t have control over and the thread title is referring to Romania and Bulgaria. The first source you’ve linked is in regards to Non-European migrants.

---

You're the only person who has made this exclusively about EU migrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

The second source is about issues other than the economic impact of immigration, which is the only aspect I’ve commented on within this thread.

---

Three lines above this you were responding on the provision of GP's, so which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Your third source reaffirms what I’ve previously said about immigration providing an economic benefit (from within the EU)

---

Correct, at approximately £258.82 million per year over a 17 year period. This equates to 0.009% of the UK GDP. I cannot find the number of EU born citizens living in the UK, but the total number of foreign born citizens living in the UK is 7.3 million and estimates are that two thirds of migrants are born in the EU. This would mean about 4.8 million EU citizens living in the UK which is 7.5% of the entire population. If you think 7.5% of the population contributing a mere 0.009% to the GDP is good value then you must be living on another planet. Yes the UK-born workers made a negative contribution during this period, but that is a different issue with the welfare structure, and even an argument for getting more UK-born citizens into work to reduce this negative contribution.

You're talking about a net contribution literally of pennies per person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

and your fourth and final source is in regards to water shortages. Whilst there are undoubtedly negative factors to mass immigration that I’m not disputing, the economic benefit they provide (which you referred to as “rubbish”) is clearly heavily supported from a number of differing sources.

---

As stated previously, this discussion is not just about the economic impact, but you want it to be that way because it's clearly the only issue on which you believe to have the upper hand, even if it is only 0.009% of the GDP excluding impact on infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Clearly there are other issues such as housing not keeping up with the growing population and other concerns regarding infrastructure.

---

I'm glad you agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

“migrants in the UK pay more in tax than they consume in public services (that’s not true of every migrant of course, but collectively they make a net contribution)” from the last of my sources in my previous post.

---

Yep, 0.009%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Reading the methodology from that source it seems they have added British Citizens (British-born children of migrants) to their figures which is obviously going to skew their results?

---

Care you explain your reasoning? Point 5 is being referred to. Net migration is being calculated as a increase in the overall population of 0.3% and stating the subsequent increase in GDP is 0.34%, which implies the actual benefit to the economy is (increased GDP)-(increased population). I see no attempt to skew the results?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Generally the people buying up property in London are wealthy and would be able to move here and buy property under stricter immigration policies (such as the Australian points system I believe Dan supports). Obviously in the poorer parts that’s not the case (but a worker on the national average wage would be able to afford a mortgage in one of those parts). The extreme prices in London are due to it being a financial capital of the world and not because Romanians and Bulgarians are driving up the prices. That’s not to say that immigration doesn’t affect housing prices at all because I’m sure it does to some extent but in regards to your example of London that’s not something which would have been prevented by stricter immigration policies unless you wanted to limit the amount of wealthy and educated migrants coming here, and when people are discussing immigration policies it tends to be the poorer blue collared workers they want to limit and not the ultra-rich Sheikhs from the House of Saud or Russian Oligarchs who buy up property in Belgravia.

---

You're INCREDIBLY off the mark here, especially on the part I made bold. I live in London and I can tell you these are entirely different worlds. Property that people buy as a means of storing cash are properties worth millions that the common citizen would never have been able to afford in the first place. This market is flourishing, yes, but buying a £10 million house in Mayfair is not taking away property from the common person.

I can also tell you a studio flat in Zone 4 London will set you back £280,000. This is not affordable to someone on the average UK salary. And the further out of London you go, the more you spend to get back in to Zone 1, in time as much as money.

Buy to let on the other hand is taking property away from the common person. And this is fueled entirely by demand; demand that has increased with the increase in population. 20 years ago landlords would struggle to find tenants at 30% of the common wage for a studio flat, but today you can advertise a bedsit with shared facilities at 65% of the common wage and you'll be able to rent it very easily.

Homes which were designed for families are now let out at 2 or 3 to a room because people can't afford to rent a flat for themselves.

Yes, investors are a big part of the problem, but they wouldn't be as keen to invest to make a profit if the demand was not sky high. Nobody is stating Bulgarians and Romanians are driving up prices, that is an attempt to make it look like minorities are being blamed when they're not. It is a simple matter of statistics, it is nothing to do with where people are from.

My local library was knocked down, the land sold to a private developer to build luxury flats. That is a community facility which is gone forever. And to rub it in, the Singaporean website which advertised the flats as buy to let investments stated that no flats would be owner occupiers or under occupation of key workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Oh my god. So they are sitting back home in Romania and Bulgaria applying for British NI numbers for the hell of it? No actually, why did I even ask because the logic here is so warped you'll probably say yes and ask for me to prove otherwise. I'd have more luck reasoning with the patients in Ashworth Hospital.

They are immigrants, they have moved to the United Kingdom thanks to EU open borders and you lot were wrong. Now admit it and show some humility.

---

I said a year ago that the number of Romanians and Bulgarians did not increase compared to the year previous.

That was correct. That was not wrong.

Even in that same exact post (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post8115520) I go on to say "you would expect an increase in immigration when the 2014 stats are released"

So please do keep saying I was wrong (at least when the 2014 stats do get released - which they haven't, as I've said before, this is about foreign workers, not foreign people physically moving), because surely if I'm wrong in saying that, then that means you are equally wrong if we're both saying the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hashterix

Your logic is not flawed, but you haven't been reading the news as this isn't the case. I cannot give you the reasons behind the increase in workload, but some might speculate as to people seeing a doctor for the first time where they haven't had access to free medical care previously.

---

Then the increased workload comment of yours is irrelevant to immigration and the topic at hand.

Quote:

---

You're the only person who has made this exclusively about EU migrants.

---

Read the thread title, read the opening post, read the comments about open borders which is specific to the EU (unless we have open borders and mass immigration with countries outside the EU?). It is a fair assumption to make that a thread about Romanian and Bulgarians claiming national insurance is about EU immigration.

Quote:

---

Three lines above this you were responding on the provision of GP's, so which is it?

---

I commented on the GP point to highlight your inaccuracy and hypocrisy (complaining about a lack of sources and whilst in the same breath making false comments without citations). Hence why I didn’t delve into specifics and only used it in reference to your lack of a source and inaccuracy.

Quote:

---

You're talking about a net contribution literally of pennies per person.

---

It doesn't matter if it is only a profit of 1 pence per immigrant it's still not an economic disadvantage which you implied with your 'Rubbish' comment. That’s all I’ve said.

Quote:

---

As stated previously, this discussion is not just about the economic impact, but you want it to be that way because it's clearly the only issue on which you believe to have the upper hand, even if it is only 0.009% of the GDP excluding impact on infrastructure.

---

Not at all, I saw a glaringly wrong comment by you on the economic aspects of immigration so that's what I responded to. This topic has been done to death with three threads on the first page of this section. I commented on the economic aspect to which you falsely quoted me as saying immigration is overall good, which is not what was said. I don’t want this thread to be anything, if I see something that’s inaccurate I’ll call it out, that’s all.

Quote:

---

Care you explain your reasoning? Point 5 is being referred to. Net migration is being calculated as a increase in the overall population of 0.3% and stating the subsequent increase in GDP is 0.34%, which implies the actual benefit to the economy is (increased GDP)-(increased population). I see no attempt to skew the results?

---

If you read through their methodology it says that they’ve included children born to immigrants in the UK (British Citizens). Perhaps I misread it but if they are including British Citizens in their statistics as migrants then it will be inaccurate.

I could go on all night here. We can at least agree we all have some valid and invalid points, even if you believe you have no invalid points. I'd rather not waste my time continuing something that will inform no further somebody's opinion because this has turned from a debate on population statistics to a debate on who said what, and specifically in Tom's case a debate exclusively on English comprehension, hypocrisy, and the fundamental way in which the economy functions.

My points have been made, take from it what you will.

If you don't want a thread to turn into something other than what it started as try not to make up arguments that other people haven't said, then it can stay as just being the things that have actually been claimed