Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Is the UK full? Population to be 70 million before 2030 watch

  • View Poll Results: Is the UK full?
    Yes
    50.00%
    No
    50.00%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm open to the idea that London may be close (though we should build taller) however the UK certainly is not.

    I'm all for a larger population, a larger labour force increases output which increases tax revenues which increases the defense budget which increases our economic and diplomatic importance in the world maintaining our power. Case in point is that India (a poor country on aggregate) is more important than Norway (tiny but rich population).

    The only thing I don't agree with is this diversity rubbish. I want a higher native birthrate and to import those who are ethnically and/or culturally similar (whites, Hispanics and Orientals).

    So long as we elect governments who get a grip on infrastructure I'll be quite happy with a booming population.
    The problem is that the UK will be more dependent on third world countries if its population increases. It will need more oil, gas, steel, copper, meat, corn,etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Nevertheless his point is sound
    Nevertheless nothing. Don't excuse such abusive behaviour.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    More people means more taxes which means more schools 'n' hospitals - and more jobs for that matter. Proportionally no different and it scarcely matters whether they are immigrants or not
    You'll note in my example I included already existing infrastructure like the M4. It's extremely unlikely any increases in tax revenue will result in expansion of this type of infrastructure and so the load on it will continue to rise.

    I also doubt that a large enough percentage of new immigrants of the sort we're currently welcoming in will go on to be net contributors to tax revenue.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    people are obsessed with having individual houses with individual gardens: a much more sensible model would be to have communal dwellings.
    Sod that.

    You might want to share a living space with some scummer but others have higher living standards.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Nevertheless his point is sound. More people means more taxes which means more schools 'n' hospitals - and more jobs for that matter. Proportionally no different and it scarcely matters whether they are immigrants or not
    If they are immediately employable in well-paid jobs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    .

    Where is your cut off point? If you use the "only 7% urban" (it's closer to 10% in England, and lower in Scotland and Wales) argument to justify urban expansion, very soon it will be considerably more than 7% if you're not careful. Surely we don't want to encourage endless urban growth?
    Well, why would it be considerably more?

    The projection is 11 percent more growth in population size. That would be less than 1 percent in rural land loss.

    That is assuming that no brownfield sites are developed
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    If they are immediately employable in well-paid jobs.
    Because the fact, they are more likely to have a job, less likely to use public services and less likely to take benefits isn't enough.

    The job now needs to be ' well paid '
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Because the fact, they are more likely to have a job, less likely to use public services and less likely to take benefits isn't enough.

    The job now needs to be ' well paid '
    I was answering someone who said that more people means more taxes. It is only true if they immediately earn high wages.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Nevertheless nothing. Don't excuse such abusive behaviour.

    You'll note in my example I included already existing infrastructure like the M4. It's extremely unlikely any increases in tax revenue will result in expansion of this type of infrastructure and so the load on it will continue to rise.

    I also doubt that a large enough percentage of new immigrants of the sort we're currently welcoming in will go on to be net contributors to tax revenue.
    Looking at the state of services today if the "migrants pay taxes" argument is true, then why do we have such a crisis?
    Migrans of the calibre being let in (and their numbers) CAUSE these problems, they certainly do not pay to reduce them.

    (Original post by JC.)
    Sod that.

    You might want to share a living space with some scummer but others have higher living standards.
    This is why I like TSR; Sure, the left wing are nutters and I have no idea where they come from since the country and Europe has lurched right;
    But then someone says something like that and I just +1
    Couldn't agree more.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The responses of many on this thread reveal why the UK is becoming (and deserves to be) a declining third-rate nation.

    The successful nations in the world today have the exact opposite mentality to the dullards who have infested this thread (and TSR in general). People who are on TSR far too much to be healthy, and most likely have no lives, and will certainly make no impact on the UK or world in general regardless of the tripe they spew on here.

    Enjoy your rants that won't change a thing, losers.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Worth noting that the urban designation here refers to any built on area and includes things like roads, train tracks and the smallest of villages. Furthermore within urban zones typically only 1/3 of the land area has a man made structure on it.
    I know, that's why I chose it. We're talking about urban expansion, and those green spaces within an urban area are still part of an urban area rather than countryside.

    There's a statistic that excludes all those urban green spaces and comes up with a figure of 2%, which is highly misleading. I've seen it cited on this forum a few times in the past.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I hate when people say UK is full.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I know, that's why I chose it. We're talking about urban expansion, and those green spaces within an urban area are still part of an urban area rather than countryside.

    There's a statistic that excludes all those urban green spaces and comes up with a figure of 2%, which is highly misleading. I've seen it cited on this forum a few times in the past.
    I don't see why it's a problem. I do understand the importance of green spaces including gardens in cities, surely if needed we can just build up.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Nevertheless nothing. Don't excuse such abusive behaviour.

    You'll note in my example I included already existing infrastructure like the M4. It's extremely unlikely any increases in tax revenue will result in expansion of this type of infrastructure and so the load on it will continue to rise.

    I also doubt that a large enough percentage of new immigrants of the sort we're currently welcoming in will go on to be net contributors to tax revenue.
    Well quite, that's the fault of a fiscally "responsible" government that refuses point blank to spend on anything useful. Taxes should be spent on infrastructure by default.

    Whether someone is a net contributor mainly depends on whether they are here at working age or not and how many dependents they have. This is why EU immigrants are the only net contributors to the public purse, with natives (here in youth and old age) and non-EU immigrants (larger families who usually settle) net takers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Whether someone is a net contributor mainly depends on whether they are here at working age or not
    As the UK average salary is below the break-even point for being a net contributor, most people here are a drain on taxes. The main contributor is clearly skills & abilities in high-paying roles, not just being of working age.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I don't see why it's a problem. I do understand the importance of green spaces including gardens in cities, surely if needed we can just build up.
    It's a problem because it can be used to downplay the extent of urbanisation in the UK and make it look not as bad as it actually is. Allotments, parks and the like are all part of the urban area and should be included when talking about how much space urban areas take up - they're certainly not part of open countryside.

    I could be convinced either way on issues of population growth, urbanisation and immigration with convincing reliable evidence, but the environmental impacts haven't really been discussed so I don't know for sure, and there isn't a lot of information about some parts of it. Right now it's something I'm concerned and skeptical about.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    As the UK average salary is below the break-even point for being a net contributor, most people here are a drain on taxes. The main contributor is clearly skills & abilities in high-paying roles, not just being of working age.
    Yes OK but that's not immediately relevant to immigration: first you will have to provide proof that immigrants are significantly less skilled than everyone else. You "doubt" that they are skilled - anything concrete? And if it's mainly about skills precisely what mechanisms would make EU immigrants so much more skilled than natives?

    I do support only letting in skilled non-EU immigration in principle, and ideally according to need as part of a state-directed industrial strategy.

    The thing is though if the immigrants coming in were all skilled, on average they would get all the good jobs with the Brits doing all the grunt work. I hardly think people would be happy with that either.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yes OK but that's not immediately relevant to immigration:
    Immigration is not the cause, but makes the problem worse.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    first you will have to provide proof that immigrants are significantly less skilled than everyone else. You "doubt" that they are skilled - anything concrete?
    Law of averages. Not concrete I guess, but it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to believe a majority of new unregulated arrivals will be at best equal to the current population average.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    And if it's mainly about skills precisely what mechanisms would make EU immigrants so much more skilled than natives?
    Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I do support only letting in skilled non-EU immigration in principle, and ideally according to need as part of a state-directed industrial strategy.
    I'd extend that policy to EU immigration as well.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    The thing is though if the immigrants coming in were all skilled, on average they would get all the good jobs with the Brits doing all the grunt work. I hardly think people would be happy with that either.
    Exactly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There are too many people on the planet- the number of people in the UK is irrelevant in the wider scheme of things.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)

    The thing is though if the immigrants coming in were all skilled, on average they would get all the good jobs with the Brits doing all the grunt work. I hardly think people would be happy with that either.
    At equal skills, a British employer will always favour the British applicant. If British companies hire skilled foreign workers, it's because they can't find similar skills at home. Think about all the native speakers required for exporting goods and services.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I was answering someone who said that more people means more taxes. It is only true if they immediately earn high wages.
    And like I wrote before, because being employed, claiming less benefits, and using less public services is not enough.

    Instead if we didn't employ anyone in these jobs and had less or no corp tax then we would have more tax.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.