|
Basically you're investing in immigrants not to get a return from them but from their children one day.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Even if immigrants were a complete economic burden, immigration is still good because it allows those people to escape warzones and destitution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Basically you're investing in immigrants not to get a return from them but from their children one day. It's one of the most convoluted ways to stabilize the welfare systems. It's highly speculative and the return, if any, will only come 30 years later. A bad business plan, if you can call wishful thinking to the second degree a plan at all. The functionality of this argument is mainly to postpone the promised results to the next generation and therefore to lower the expectations for the present. I'm not saying it can't work, but I don't see it working out that way. And it means in fact acknowledging that there will be one lost generation. Experience shows that the children of unemployed and/or unproductive parents (be the natives or immigrants) have a harder time emancipating from these ways. What can their parents teach them wrt life skills? Once again, I'm not saying there is no way to break this vicious circle, but rather I do not know the solution and I do not see anyone coming up with a solution. YF-23 posted:Even if immigrants were a complete economic burden, immigration is still good because it allows those people to escape warzones and destitution. As I wrote earlier, the utilitarian argument has to be considered separately from the humanitarian. It simply happens the utilitarian argument isn't convincing. If seeking refuge from a warzone is a valid motive (which I agree with), this means that any European country that isn't a warzone is obligated to take in refugees, not only Sweden, Germany and Austria. And it means refugees aren't automatically entitled to get to a country of their wishing, but rather a (European)country that is at peace. I'm not seeing too many European volunteers to share the burden. Probably because they do not believe in the utilitarian argument either. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Even if immigrants were a complete economic burden, immigration is still good because it allows those people to escape warzones and destitution. If you plan on settling people permanently and granting them citizenship, you need an economic follow up, or risk destabilizing you own country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:As I wrote earlier, the utilitarian argument has to be considered separately from the humanitarian. It simply happens the utilitarian argument isn't convincing. If seeking refuge from a warzone is a valid motive (which I agree with), this means that any European country that isn't a warzone is obligated to take in refugees, not only Sweden, Germany and Austria. And it means refugees aren't automatically entitled to get to a country of their wishing, but rather a (European)country that is at peace. I'm not seeing too many European volunteers to share the burden. Probably because they do not believe in the utilitarian argument either. For sure, countries in the EU should all do their part in this, not just Greece, Sweden and Germany. steinrokkan posted:That's refugees. I'm completely at odds with you on this, both on having to have an economic followup, and on the nebulous risk of "destabilisation" that would happen if you didn't have an economic followup. If you can expand on the argument you're trying to make here instead of simply making a statement that would be good, because I can only project from your statement some kind of argument about whether a state can afford the expense of supporting an immigrant population which ultimately leads me to a libertarian-esque argument that taxes are already at their maximum value after which society will unravel into anarchy. And I include non-refugees in my statement because I still think there's a valid moral imperative to help out people that are escaping conditions of poverty or authoritarianism even if those don't fall under the officially accepted definition of a refugee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
You can do things one of two ways. The first is the American model: keep all the immigrants without desirable skills politically disenfranchised, with no access to government services, and under a constant threat of deportation, so they can't speak up. The second is: Grant them citizenship, and all the perks of the welfare state, with the implication that perhaps not the first, but the second generation, raised and educated with public assistance, will be productive citizens. In that case you obviously need government revenue capable of doing that, or your budget will implode, you will be forced to cut services and your political position will deteriorate going into the next elections. Raising taxes is not an option in most countries, both for political reasons (losing votes), and because already tax burden on average citizen in most European countries is over 50% of total wage expenses. The idea that you can just print / collect any arbitrary amount of additional money if you want without repercussions is just absurd. So, what can you do? Antagonize the voting public by raising their taxes / reducing their benefits, only to have your pro-immigration policies reversed by the next government after a couple years? Run a growing deficit, thus potentially sentencing your own people to years of austerity down the line? Hope that you will just weather the years of public finances sponsored demographic transformation of the immigrant groups, after which they will become an economic asset? Try to convince the entire nation that they have a collective moral duty towards somebody other than themselves? Supporting unqualified immigration due to one politician's moral convictions looks like a losing political proposition, likely to usher in a period of reactionary victories. Political asylum seekers are covered under international law as their own case, similar to refugees. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The second is: Grant them citizenship, and all the perks of the welfare state, with the implication that perhaps not the first, but the second generation, raised and educated with public assistance, will be productive citizens. In that case you obviously need government revenue capable of doing that, or your budget will implode, you will be forced to cut services and your political position will deteriorate going into the next elections. The question is, whether any government, however willing and financially manoeuvrable, is able to "raise and educate" people to become productive citizens. There have been enough wet dreams of social engineers in the last century, and most didn't work out too well, neither for society as a whole nor for "those you bettered".
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Or, the preferred solution would be to have an effective social work sector capable of integrating newcomers into society and the labour market ASAP through active methods. Still, that is just a technocratic apparatus with no moral purpose per se, and apparently not all that many people are convinced about this actually being practically possible, even in this thread. Is there any empirical data on this? Overall, accepting more immigrants is probably much more economically beneficial in the long term than trying to rely on domestic resources to combat a demographic decline, but it's also risky politically in the short term, and governments think in four year periods. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes? It negates the argument that immigrants are too expensive, because the alternative, raising more children, is also expensive, and also requires people to abstain from work to take care of them. I think we are agreeing here. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You can do things one of two ways. See, this ultimately boils down to what I understood, that is to say, an argument against ever raising taxes. If your country is so volatile that you can no longer raise taxes without risking the far-right coming to power, your political personnel is already irredeemable. Greece has gone to poo poo and back for 5 years in a row and for all the bad horrible poo poo that's happened the country has not actually descended to chaos with nazis in power. Are you telling me the central European countries are more politically fragile than Greece?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
You don't have to go to Nazis. No slightly right wing party supports broad immigration, and very few leftist parties do. If the balance is that currently 51 MPs support a pro-immigration platform, and 49 MPs support making immigration laws less "generous", then a slight change in public opinion can lead to a dismantling of everything you built, even if the opposition party is just boring old market liberals. I guess country destabilization is more dramatic than I meant to say. More like you need a solid economically sound plan if you don't want to give the keys to the country to your political opposition. Note my post you quoted was made under the implicit assumption that hypothetical immigrants would be economically a burden for any foreseeable future, so the worst possible scenario, which is not really comparable to reality, and is only remotely applicable at times of extreme crisis, like with Syria / Eritrea now. By the way, what taxes would you safely raise to supplement existing revenue? steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
What do you do when you have refugees fleeing a war zone or repression from a brutal regime (Ethiopia says hello) who arrive in your country but not because they want to find shelter here, merely because it's geographically between where they were and where they actually want to go?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Perhaps the welfare state is the problem if mild immigration is supposed to cause an implosion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Perhaps the welfare state is the problem if mild immigration is supposed to cause an implosion. It's not been in a great shape for ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Perhaps the welfare state is the problem if mild immigration is supposed to cause an implosion. Policy ever since the fall of the wall has been to dismantle and eradicate all the last remnants of welfare state in Europe, yes. It's all a question of choice, though. European nation states do not lack funds for welfare, they merely lack the will to spend it on welfare for people. Instead they prefer to spend it on welfare for corporation, by setting up a large and complex variety of legal loopholes and tax dodging schemes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:What do you do when you have refugees fleeing a war zone or repression from a brutal regime (Ethiopia says hello) who arrive in your country but not because they want to find shelter here, merely because it's geographically between where they were and where they actually want to go? Depends. If you signed a treaty like Dublin, you have to register them and are supposed to be responsible for them. Dublin might be poo poo, but afaik was agreed upon by all the members of Schengen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:By the way, what taxes would you safely raise to supplement existing revenue? That depends on the tax regime of each individual country, Germany would probably be raising different taxes than Ireland, or a non-Eurozone country like Sweden. But generally speaking, either you can raise taxes without destroying your political position, or you can't, and the latter scenario is extremely damning and indicative of very deep issues in your political system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:But generally speaking, either you can raise taxes without destroying your political position, or you can't, and the latter scenario is extremely damning and indicative of very deep issues in your political system. Not being able to raise taxes as you please is indicative of having a democratic system where you have to be able to convince your electorate that it is in their interest to pay even more taxes. This becomes more difficult, the more money is squandered for particular interests and the higher the taxes and dues already are. It becomes really interesting when you are intending to spend the money on creating incentives for even more immigrants to come who in turn will put more strain on the expenses. You are basically selling the idea that is cool to raise taxes so that in the future even more taxes will have to be raised. I don't see how you can win an election that way. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Parties should be talking about they'll lower taxes instead, reducing regressive taxes on consumption like VAT, cars and fuel-taxes, stuff that affect working class people the most, and make up for it by taking more from the top instead. Pretty sure most people would say yes to that if only someone came out and said it plainly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You can do things one of two ways. None of these are ever going to happen in Europe, even if hell freezes over. You are just advocating for not taking people in at all, if the above is what it's gonna take. While the system we have right now is very far from perfect, it gets results done and is not very demanding on public finances. EU wide we have an unemployment rate of ~50% for refugees and at least for Germany the chance of employment peaks in the mid 70%(after people have stayed for at least ten years). And while the second generation suffers some disadvantage compared to the natives, the gap is much, much smaller there. We should be working on improving the current system, getting more people employment through free language courses, closing the gap for the second generation, more education opportunities for adults, more public awareness campaigns, etc., not trying to turn people into US style serfs or run some megalomaniac social engineering project.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/782909467524493313 uh oh mateo
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Parties should be talking about they'll lower taxes instead, reducing regressive taxes on consumption like VAT, cars and fuel-taxes, stuff that affect working class people the most, and make up for it by taking more from the top instead. Pretty sure most people would say yes to that if only someone came out and said it plainly. Taking more from the top is good in principle (and I am 1000% in favor of it), but unworkable in reality, not while the EU is still designed as an elaborate tax-dodging device. To get rid of tax dodging, we need either of these things to happen: - fiscal harmonization to get rid of fiscal competition -- countries like Luxembourg or Ireland would do everything they can to block any such attempt - tariffs applied to products and services sold by corporations that do not pay their taxes locally -- this is pretty much the exact opposite of the common market Since neither of these things will happen, countries have to rely on undodgeable taxes -- that is, taxes such as VAT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
You would need a closed financial system to use taxes to attack big business, which won't happen in the globalized world we live in, it isn't possible by any of the methods available. Or you turn North-Korea. Taxing the middle class even more when the taxes are already to the tune of 50% will not garner any favours either, and will be counter productive in the end when people stop working or spending money since they have none and/or everything is too expensive. Some kind of 80% or 100% tax scheme only works in socialist fantasies, it has never ever worked anywhere in the real world no matter how much we want it to 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:None of these are ever going to happen in Europe, even if hell freezes over. You are just advocating for not taking people in at all, if the above is what it's gonna take. Yeah, the regular immigration system more or less works, what I was writing about was more of a proposition of taking in as many people as possible at any cost out of a moral imperative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Ligur posted:You would need a closed financial system to use taxes to attack big business, which won't happen in the globalized world we live in, it isn't possible by any of the methods available. Or you turn North-Korea. 91% top tax rate in the US between 1946 and 1961 but i guess it never worked besides in socialist fantasies like the USA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:
This would be the American model if it weren't for birthright citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
9-Volt Assault posted:91% top tax rate in the US between 1946 and 1961 but i guess it never worked besides in socialist fantasies like the USA. I don't believe that any meaningful number Americans much lesss the middle classes were taxed 91% between 1946 and 1961 for a minute. steinrokkan posted:Yeah, the regular immigration system more or less works, what I was writing about was more of a proposition of taking in as many people as possible at any cost out of a moral imperative. It does. What people who critisize EU immigration policies talk about is irregular immigration (perhaps excluding Britons who don't like Polish workers flooding the job market). Like in this thread, people will respond to this by replying as if it was about regular immigration. Ligur fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I don't believe that Americans were taxed 91% between 1946 and 1961 for a minute. IIRC adjusted for inflation only people who made more than like $10 million/year paid that much, which were much fewer and far between than today since there was less wealth inequality. The biggest thing about income taxes that's changed is the reduction of tax brackets. There are like 5(?) in the US today and were like a dozen different brackets back in the 50s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Looking at nominal tax rates without taking into account how tax base is determined is not really a useful metric. Effective tax rate would be more interesting, as would a closer look at the interplay between corporations and corporate dividend taxation. Pulling a Sanders and just stating "But we had a 91% tax rate!" is about as useful as saying, e.g. that Germany only has a 15% corporate income tax rate, when discussing fairness in taxation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:IIRC adjusted for inflation only people who made more than like $10 million/year paid that much, which were much fewer and far between than today since there was less wealth inequality. That I can believe. Why was that one moron responding to my post about middle class taxation with that 91% poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
In other news Kim Kardashian was a victim of a home invasion at her mansion in Paris today, and jewelry worth several million euros was stolen. The right wing has already declared both Taubira and Anne Hidalgo (the current mayor of Paris) guilty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
In regards to the question of refugees/immigrants becoming economic assets, there is also the question of technological progress. If you plan to wait for their children to grow up before you start seeing dividends, you run the very real risk of those children growing into a job market where automation is king, and there simply aren't enough jobs to go around no matter how healthy the economy. It's not even just blue collar work either, white collar jobs are going to be at risk too, so education alone isn't going to help. We're moving into a period where the state needs to basically take into account not just retirees as non-economically productive citizens, but a large (and growing) portion of working age people too, and in such a scenario the value of keeping your population stable plummets as the distinction between working age people and retirees gets blurred. Which, again, is solely an argument against the economic advantages of taking in immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:In regards to the question of refugees/immigrants becoming economic assets, there is also the question of technological progress. If you plan to wait for their children to grow up before you start seeing dividends, you run the very real risk of those children growing into a job market where automation is king, and there simply aren't enough jobs to go around no matter how healthy the economy. It's not even just blue collar work either, white collar jobs are going to be at risk too, so education alone isn't going to help. We're moving into a period where the state needs to basically take into account not just retirees as non-economically productive citizens, but a large (and growing) portion of working age people too, and in such a scenario the value of keeping your population stable plummets as the distinction between working age people and retirees gets blurred. If there aren't enough jobs to go around due to automation than enjoy the Star Trek future. Mind you worry about there not being enough jobs after automation was the argument of the Luddite in the industrial revolution, so I'm not terribly concerned about that actually taking place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:In other news Kim Kardashian was a victim of a home invasion at her mansion in Paris today, and jewelry worth several million euros was stolen. The right wing has already declared both Taubira and Anne Hidalgo (the current mayor of Paris) guilty. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:In regards to the question of refugees/immigrants becoming economic assets, there is also the question of technological progress. If you plan to wait for their children to grow up before you start seeing dividends, you run the very real risk of those children growing into a job market where automation is king, and there simply aren't enough jobs to go around no matter how healthy the economy. It's not even just blue collar work either, white collar jobs are going to be at risk too, so education alone isn't going to help. We're moving into a period where the state needs to basically take into account not just retirees as non-economically productive citizens, but a large (and growing) portion of working age people too, and in such a scenario the value of keeping your population stable plummets as the distinction between working age people and retirees gets blurred. No, it's an argument against the current configuration of the welfare system, which depends on workers to support the elderly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Le Milieu attacked someone who regularly instragram herself with a 20+ carats pure diamond emerald ring(4+ million€) while pretending to be cops? What a surprise! Let's blame the left wing! It's not like they know how to do anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, it's an argument against the current configuration of the welfare system, which depends on workers to support the elderly. are you suggesting we should put all old people out into the woods and let nature sort it out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:are you suggesting we should put all old people out into the woods and let nature sort it out? Perhaps there is a third option other than using the young to pay for lovely savings by the old, and letting old people starve to death?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:In other news Kim Kardashian was a victim of a home invasion at her mansion in Paris today, and jewelry worth several million euros was stolen. The right wing has already declared both Taubira and Anne Hidalgo (the current mayor of Paris) guilty. RPP. Rich People Problems, they can all go gently caress a hat,
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:37 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Perhaps there is a third option other than using the young to pay for lovely savings by the old, and letting old people starve to death? Money is an abstraction. Everything old people consume has to be created by the working population and is ultimately taken from them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:29
|
|