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

[FlyingJesus]

I answered your points in the same order that you wrote them. There were three lines in your post and mine was very clearly formatted. I'm sorry you had trouble comprehending my post.

The only post I have here that is comprised of 3 lines is
Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them
Nope
Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.
And your response was "well you didn't". That's not a clear format or a response to anything that has ever been said.

To answer your response to my question: I am not disputing that more services cost more to run, that actually backs up the point I am making. If we have more people paying tax, then we have more money to spend on services, which we in turn need to serve the larger population. Your answer doesn't actually make much sense either, because you're answering as if I've claimed that the population pays a lump sum of tax and then walks away. The money you speak of comes from tax as a cash flow and is then spent on the services as required, also as a cash flow. If you have an increase in the tax income but no change in the amount spent then this equates to an income surplus.

Yes it does. Is there an argument here? We seem to be missing a point of contention

Big business is part of the economy, but when referring to big business as being the main recipient of economic benefits, it is the shareholders who are being referred to. The people working for big business have had their wages suppressed by the large surplus in workers, which means that big business has the benefit of being able to pay less to its workers and keep more money for itself. It benefits a small group of individuals, while the majority of society lose out on money which would have been spread more widely among the community.

ie supply and demand yep that is a thing that exists well done

TLDR: Great for employers, bad for employees.

I find it unbelievable that people like you defend these practices. Surely you are no millionaire yourself? Or maybe you are sadomasochistic when it comes to finance?

What who is a people like me I'm not a millionaire but I'm also not a communist I know that when money comes in the majority goes to the top and it trickles down a little and wow we don't all get everything equally and trading doesn't just go unit by unit like (again) a computer game, magicccccc. People seem to love placing me with people that are nothing like me, it's quite hilarious

The other thing I asked was the following: Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

Hopskotch. idk I don't advocate uncontrolled immigration



Why do people always seem to think I'm part of something that I'm not

[-:Undertaker:-]

A great set of posts by Hashterix.

Really put an end there to the constant skullduggery and distorting of numbers/facts that we're subjected to by the same lot in every thread on this topic.

Hopskotch. idk I don't advocate uncontrolled immigration

Why do people always seem to think I'm part of something that I'm not

Yes you do.

Every single time this debate comes up you are one of the prime defenders of mass immigration, indeed I am sure I recall you as one of the ones on this very forum mocking and disputing the fact that there was a large and present danger that by opening the borders to Romania and Bulgaria huge numbers would come as a result. I was proved one hundred percent right, and those who argued endlessly against me on here have been proved one hundred percent wrong yet where is the humility to admit they were wrong? If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

And yet here you are, again, defending a 576% rise. It's incredible. Here's some of the others (now silent) on this forum who got it completely wrong.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=792338

Yes, I think our borders should be opened up to Romania and Bulgaria under the EU.

Give me a break, Dan. Your entire argument is built on fabricated lies coupled with exaggerated, scaremongering comparisons

You already know where I stand, that the borders should be opened for Romanians and Bulgarians.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=775918

Farage really is made to look ridiculous, and somehow still insists the Bulgarians are going to come here.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=796951

Also worth noting that the number of people immigrating from Romania and Bulgaria didn't increase

Time and time again it's the same old crowd on here who will adopt doublethink and argue the opposite to reality. How silly they look now.

Looking back at those few threads though, it's sobering to know how the majority of us who knew what was coming got it so right.

[The Don]

A great set of posts by Hashterix.

Really put an end there to the constant skullduggery and distorting of numbers/facts that we're subjected to by the same lot in every thread on this topic.



Yes you do.

Every single time this debate comes up you are one of the prime defenders of mass immigration, indeed I am sure I recall you as one of the ones on this very forum mocking and disputing the fact that there was a large and present danger that by opening the borders to Romania and Bulgaria huge numbers would come as a result. I was proved one hundred percent right, and those who argued endlessly against me on here have been proved one hundred percent wrong yet where is the humility to admit they were wrong? If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

And yet here you are, again, defending a 576% rise. It's incredible. Here's some of the others (now silent) on this forum who got it completely wrong.







Time and time again it's the same old crowd on here who will adopt doublethink and argue the opposite to reality. How silly they look now.

Looking back at those few threads though, it's sobering to know how the majority of us who knew what was coming got it so right.

Yes and I was right and you were wrong. You've quoted my post about the polish immigration numbers being lower than the number you claimed (and I was right). How has my comment about you lying about the number of polish people coming here(which I proved in the same post you've misquoted me from) got anything to do with the number of people from Romania and Bulgaria coming here :s
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...18#post8075318

[FlyingJesus]

I like how the only way certain people can "beat" me in these threads is by tackling arguments I haven't made and lying about what I think. Pretty sure making stuff up and misrepresenting everything isn't putting an end to anything substantial, let alone an imaginary alliance

If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

No because no matter what my stance is on things I don't just "side with" whoever seems to agree with my overall views for the fun of it when they're wrong about stuff - that helps nobody. It's not a playground and I'm not picking sides, I point out when figures and facts are misrepresented and that's all that seems to happen here. Cronyism isn't my game

[Firehorse]

The only post I have here that is comprised of 3 lines is
Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them
Nope
Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.
And your response was "well you didn't". That's not a clear format or a response to anything that has ever been said.

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.

My response to your comment on my signature was on the third line of the post only.

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.

Yes it does. Is there an argument here? We seem to be missing a point of contention

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

ie supply and demand yep that is a thing that exists well done

TLDR: Great for employers, bad for employees.

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.

What who is a people like me I'm not a millionaire but I'm also not a communist I know that when money comes in the majority goes to the top and it trickles down a little and wow we don't all get everything equally and trading doesn't just go unit by unit like (again) a computer game, magicccccc.

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?

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?

People seem to love placing me with people that are nothing like me, it's quite hilarious

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.

Hopskotch. idk I don't advocate uncontrolled immigration

Then what the hell are you here to argue about?

Why do people always seem to think I'm part of something that I'm not

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.

I like how the only way certain people can "beat" me in these threads is by tackling arguments I haven't made and lying about what I think. Pretty sure making stuff up and misrepresenting everything isn't putting an end to anything substantial, let alone an imaginary alliance

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.

No because no matter what my stance is on things I don't just "side with" whoever seems to agree with my overall views for the fun of it when they're wrong about stuff - that helps nobody. It's not a playground and I'm not picking sides, I point out when figures and facts are misrepresented and that's all that seems to happen here. Cronyism isn't my game

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.

[Inseriousity.]

Just because someone is in favour of immigration as a whole does not necessarily mean they support uncontrolled immigration. That's an absurd leap you make very often, Dan.

[Firehorse]

Just because someone is in favour of immigration as a whole does not necessarily mean they support uncontrolled immigration. That's an absurd leap you make very often, Dan.

As stated when quoting Tom, it is not black and white. It is a sliding scale.

Nobody is stating immigration on its own is a bad thing. What is being discussed is the sheer number and specific consequences of this sheer number.

An increase from ~30,000 net immigrants to ~300,000 net immigrants per annum whilst having no control over who can migrate is uncontrolled immigration. This was discussed earlier in this thread, Tom made clear that he was not concerned about this increase in numbers and thus making clear he supports uncontrolled immigration.

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.

[The Don]

You still cannot use the 37,000 arrivals statistic in your argument the way you did:

1. The NIN registration statistic is official for the 12 months to December 2014
2. The arrivals statistic was an estimate
3. The arrivals statistic was for a different timeframe, only up until September 2014, and is therefore incomplete. The official estimate for 2014 in its entirety won't be published until May.

Using the estimated arrivals statistic without stating it does not cover a different timeframe only aims to deliberately mislead the reader.

Do you not find it alarming that ~20 years ago the entire net migration figure was similar to the figure now attributed to a single nationality of migrants?

Do we have more hospitals than we had 20 years ago? No. If anything we have less.
More A&E facilities? No, A&E's are even being closed.
More GP's? No.
More police? No.
More school places? No.
Increase in reservoir capacity? No. Water is having to be processed from the Thames for the first time in history because the reservoirs cannot cope with the demand.
Has the number of homes risen in line with the rise in population? Far from it, and this is the single biggest money spinner of the entire con being played by politicians.

Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

People keep on claiming that more immigration is good for the economy. Rubbish. Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased? The only sector that benefits is big business and they're doing it under your nose.

I love how you are criticising people for not providing accurate sources yet haven't even bothered to provided a single one yourself. A quick google search shows that the number of GP's per 100k people is higher today than it was 10 years ago meaning it has not only kept up with immigration levels but has increased in ratio which leads me to believe the rest of your claims are unfounded.
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data...uk-populations

Also a number of studies have shown that immigration is either good for the economy or that it doesn't damage it, simply refuting it with the word rubbish isn't up to scratch and isn't a 'coherent' argument.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...seless-experts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10075047.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html

[Firehorse]

I love how you are criticising people for not providing accurate sources yet haven't even bothered to provided a single one yourself. A quick google search shows that the number of GP's per 100k people is higher today than it was 10 years ago meaning it has not only kept up with immigration levels but has increased in ratio which leads me to believe the rest of your claims are unfounded.
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data...uk-populations

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.

Also a number of studies have shown that immigration is either good for the economy or that it doesn't damage it, simply refuting it with the word rubbish isn't up to scratch and isn't a 'coherent' argument.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...seless-experts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10075047.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html

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.

"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.

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).

This equates to an average compound growth rates of 0.30% and 0.34% respectively. So, using the governments very simplistic basis of equating growth in GDP with the growth in the working age population, the increase in GDP each year would be 0.34% but the population would increase by 0.3% each year so the benefit per head per year would be about 0.04%. This works out at 7 per head per year or 14p a week. This calculation takes no account of additional infrastructure costs nor of the costs of congestion to which immigration on this scale will add considerably.

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.

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?

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...0-billion.html
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/PRrowthorn
http://news.sky.com/story/1366933/eu...hey-take-study
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-Civitas.html

[Kardan]

A great set of posts by Hashterix.

Really put an end there to the constant skullduggery and distorting of numbers/facts that we're subjected to by the same lot in every thread on this topic.



Yes you do.

Every single time this debate comes up you are one of the prime defenders of mass immigration, indeed I am sure I recall you as one of the ones on this very forum mocking and disputing the fact that there was a large and present danger that by opening the borders to Romania and Bulgaria huge numbers would come as a result. I was proved one hundred percent right, and those who argued endlessly against me on here have been proved one hundred percent wrong yet where is the humility to admit they were wrong? If you wanted controlled immigration you'd be siding with me, wouldn't you?

And yet here you are, again, defending a 576% rise. It's incredible. Here's some of the others (now silent) on this forum who got it completely wrong.







Time and time again it's the same old crowd on here who will adopt doublethink and argue the opposite to reality. How silly they look now.

Looking back at those few threads though, it's sobering to know how the majority of us who knew what was coming got it so right.

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?