So the government has finally decided to do something regarding the problem of illegal migrants crossing over into Britain - that being shipping them off 4,000 miles away for a stay in Rwanda.
I can only see this as a positive given the influx over the past few years to this tiny island. Living in a deprived part of England, I’ve seen first hand what impact legal migration has had on my home town (not a good one) so I’m totally against the illegal form.
As was to be expected, many on the left are not as happy as I. One thing that they often spout which I can never understand (perhaps because of my poor grasp of economics) is their argument that migrants get jobs and pay taxes - this funding schools, NHS etc.
My answer to that is “so what?” I how I see things is that there’s a finite amount of money in circulation and both employees and businesses are taxed on their earnings / revenues.
So a migrant worker may well be paying £15k in tax each year, but if they weren’t, their employer would be paying more corporation tax as their profits would be higher due to not paying that migrant worker a wage.
Please someone do let me know if that makes sense or if my thought process is much too simplistic.
Thanks
So a migrant worker may well be paying £15k in tax each year, but if they weren’t, their employer would be paying more corporation tax as their profits would be higher due to not paying that migrant worker a wage.
The employer wouldn't be generating any profit to pay corporation tax on, unless he had workers to create it - whether they were migrants or not.
The Rwanda scheme is likely to be merely a propaganda exercise because:
- At best, it will only resettle hundreds, an insignificant fraction
- A similar scheme Australia ended up costing £1.9m per person and was abandoned
- It may well be illegal under international law
Yep, it is just a headline grabbing scheme to please the more right wing Tories and their voters.
I'm surprised the backlash has not been stronger, as it is a shameful scheme.
In reality it will be just another self administered shot in the foot to BJ.
@fingal but the wage (lets say 27k - that's about the UK average) would go on their bottom line as if they weren't paying the worker it would be 27k saved.
In addition to this, there is the drain on resources that mass immigration brings which no one seems to have an answer for.
@lip09am Doesn't make any different if they're migrants or anyone else. If you don't employ any workers, you don't pay any salaries. But you also don't get any work done so you don't have a business.
If you have a business where the income from employing people is less than the cost of employment, then it is loss making, before considering other costs.
In your example, you assume zero income, per employee so that's a clue you should never start a business.
Since you are trying to find economic arguements for treating people very badly, you should consider the economic value of migrants, which is actually higher than the average indigenous person.
So, when considering who to deport how do you decide?
I know you hoped for a good reception on such a far right site, but not this time.
How do you define mass immigration?
How do you quantify the "drain on resources"?
What about migrants' superior commercial contribution, cf. indigenous people? Wouldn't that finance more resources?
It is also an immoral scheme, which is designed to appeal to the far right brigade.
Here's an interesting question.. what will be the race of people deported to Rwanda? Bearing mind that it will not be the origin of most migrants.
It is also an immoral scheme, which is designed to appeal to the far right brigade.
The Azov battalion would love it!
So the government has finally decided to do something regarding the problem of illegal migrants crossing over into Britain - that being shipping them off 4,000 miles away for a stay in Rwanda.
I can only see this as a positive given the influx over the past few years to this tiny island. Living in a deprived part of England, I’ve seen first hand what impact legal migration has had on my home town (not a good one) so I’m totally against the illegal form.
As was to be expected, many on the left are not as happy as I. One thing that they often spout which I can never understand (perhaps because of my poor grasp of economics) is their argument that migrants get jobs and pay taxes - this funding schools, NHS etc.
My answer to that is “so what?” I how I see things is that there’s a finite amount of money in circulation and both employees and businesses are taxed on their earnings / revenues.
So a migrant worker may well be paying £15k in tax each year, but if they weren’t, their employer would be paying more corporation tax as their profits would be higher due to not paying that migrant worker a wage.
Please someone do let me know if that makes sense or if my thought process is much too simplistic.
Thanks
No, you are not making sense.....
Yes, your thought process just flawed.. It's what you get when you have a firmly fixed view, then seek to justify it. In such a case you don't look for flaws in your own argument.
