Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
zaph

Charging for immigration

8 posts in this topic

Auctioning the right to come to Australia could raise $35,000 to $45,000 per immigrant, enough to boost the budget by $7.6 billion per year, a Productivity Commission analysis has found.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/charging-for-immigration-could-raise-76-billion-productivity-commission-finds-20151112-gkxf8y.html#ixzz3rLeRk4IW 

Follow us: @brisbanetimes on Twitter | brisbanetimes on Facebook

 

 

 

Apparently about the same cost as paying people smugglers to get here. What could possibly go wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently about the same cost as paying people smugglers to get here. What could possibly go wrong? 

 

Do they also get a stamp duty rebate on their first harbour front purchase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they also get a stamp duty rebate on their first harbour front purchase?

Of course. And free health care, welfare, public housing etc. 

 

An American needing a hip replacement would find this a good deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. And free health care, welfare, public housing etc. 

 

An American needing a hip replacement would find this a good deal.

 

Dumb idea. Attracting the elderly looking for universal health care rather than young entrepreneurs is ridiculous. They won't pay anywhere near as much tax and haven't earned the care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The immigration debate is likely to be a crucial election issue.

Currently there are something like 215 million migrants in the world, and Australia falls into the top 10 migration countries. This current period from about 2010 is now considered to be one of the largest human migration periods in history. It is difficult to fully determined the level of forced migration to voluntary migration. But one statistic is abundantly clear. The rise in female migration.

I think I have begun to appreciate more clearly recently why both Labour and Libs want to retain this high level of immigration. (Consider me "slow", but it is unusual to find such bi-partisan support between the two parties)

Their predominant thinking is this: That rapidly increasing the number of Australians will increase the taxation band (ie; more residents, more services, more purchases, more jobs, more tax), stimulate the economy by providing increasing number of consumers (in a consumer society, if you run out of consumers its curtains for business) and in turn provide additional candidates for the supposedly expanding workforce. It's called - Growing the nation!!

I think this policy is primarily being driven by the banks, or at least economists who have long recognised that a debt laden society requires an increasing number of sardines, to hook into the debt train, so that the banks fractional reserve banking system doesn't completely unravel. They continually require new candidates for debt because otherwise the tide goes out and they are found to be swimming naked.

It is now slowly dawning on those who have begun to see it, that a closed system (like a country) is never as simple as changing one element, and naively believing other elements of the system won't be affected.

You see, their thinking would be fine, if our world was only economically based and defined. It isn't! There is a humanitarian element. What, I think the various politicians have failed to take into account has been the human behaviour and cultural characteristics of large groups, and the wistful nature of group dynamics. Groups develop their own culture, and will resist external influences. The only tool, politicians have is legislation. They know they cannot legislate for positive relationships. Large groups without meaningful employment and productive use of their time, is dangerous and destructive. We have seen such behaviour around the world in many countries.

Governments, realise they are restricted to only offering formal controls, becase they can only legislate for break-downs in relationships. Criminal activities, or relationship abuses. The law is always dealing with the worst case scenario. Politicians want a positive outcome from their immigration policy, and they don't want to be involved with increasing conflict in their social sphere. 

They are now desperately trying to educate people of the benefits of having so many people added to our economy every year.

Whilst we bring people from other countries on a drip feed level, they are more likely to assimilate. This has been the case in the past with Australia's moderate level of immigration. But when we greatly increase the mass, we run the risk of changing the entire demography of our nation. I believe this is what is happening in Europe and is a part of the underlying narrative in the USA and Canada. The "natives", are not welcoming the intrusion and change to their own culture (culture = previous traditional norms).

Further, I happen to think their economic model is wrong as well. It takes time when you arrive in another country to locate meaningful employment, identify where you want to live, reach the level income necessary to obtain a mortgage, and become a debt/tax slave. In the meantime the welfare system has to take up the slack - otherwise you have homeless, hungry or even dead people starting to stack up around the place. Not a good look for any politician. This increase in the welfare spending requires more taxes, and so effectively it can easily stifle growth. We are walking a very fragile line here.

The current mob in power are trying to alleviate this by offering tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but I have to wonder whether it can work, because in effect it is now just a catch-up. Our cost of living has long ago exceeded what these tiny incentives might have gained.

My questions would be. Where does the cut-off lie? Can the politicians now even turn off the spigot of immigration, without the economy all collapsing around them? Yet the averse scenario is to ever so slowly watch our social fabric unwind, with increasing social unrest.

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Solomon said:

Yet the averse scenario is to ever so slowly watch our social fabric unwind, with increasing social unrest.

When you increase the density of sardines in the can, you get friction.

When you introduce sardines of a different variety that do not accept the current norms, you get friction.

Nothing new under the sun here, it has happened before and undoubtedly will happen again.

As long as the government thinks it can use immigration to increase the tax base to pay for the high spending commitments they make, they will maintain the policy ... until it blows up in their face. Europe is currently the perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan has functionally no immigration, even the new fast track they brought in last year is close enough to impossible for anyone to pass and is so restrictive those that might pass don't want to.

Next year they are closing about a quarter of universities because there are no kiddies to go to university.

If you can't see the writing on the wall there...

So maybe be careful what you wish for. Probably better to live in a country where you have options to fix the problems than one where there are few choices due to lack of tax base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tor said:

Japan has functionally no immigration, even the new fast track they brought in last year is close enough to impossible for anyone to pass and is so restrictive those that might pass don't want to.

Next year they are closing about a quarter of universities because there are no kiddies to go to university.

If you can't see the writing on the wall there...

So maybe be careful what you wish for. Probably better to live in a country where you have options to fix the problems than one where there are few choices due to lack of tax base.

Depends on how big are the problems of a loose immigration policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0