dre Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 45 minutes ago, Argus said: I have ZERO interest in growing our population unless it serves to improve the lives of those of us here now. People who come in and do not have jobs good enough to contribute to the tax base are net drains on that tax base, which means I and others are paying for their government services. That this might profit a bank or construction company does not matter to me in the slightest. And yes, I recognize that more economic activity on their part means more taxes, but since the immigrants mean more government spending the only thing that matters is whether they balance, and right now they do not. Nobody has ever presented any evidence of that. The only effort I have seen to take all those factors into account, concluded that immigration is still a net benefit to Canadians, but that the benefit is declining. Also its not just banks and construction companies. Nearly 3 quarters of our economy is selling products and services domestically. It effects almost everyone. And real wages are growing slightly over time, and employment is near all-time lows. This "sky is falling because of immigrants" narrative has no credibility. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 47 minutes ago, Argus said: Again we see this incredibly bizarre fixation of the far left with race and Islam. I haven't said one single word about Arabs. I have spoken in general terms of immigrants. We've got lots of failed immigrants from around the world, yes, especially from the middle east, according to the government's own statistics. Also from China and Africa. But it's like the Left is so obsessed with defeating the slightest hint or challenge to the very idea of bringing in as many Muslims as we possibly can (the more extreme the better) that this is all they can think of whenever immigration comes up. This is all mindless gibberish. I could care less if we let muslims in or not, and I could care less about immigration levels either. This is your pet topic not mine. I just recognize that a lot of your reasoning is bogus. My life wont change much whether we curtail levels or increase them. And I have advocated changing immigration policy to focus more on economic migrants and less on refugees and family class migrants. I would be fine with that, but I really just don't think the whole issue is that important. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 1 hour ago, dre said: Nobody has ever presented any evidence of that. New data now available from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) has al-lowed us to update our earlier estimate in order to shed light on the success of the recent major steps taken by the Federal Government to improve the selection of new immigrants to improve their economic prospects. We found that the annual net fiscal transfer to recent immigrants is significantly lower at $5,329 per capita than the $6,000 we had found in our previous analysis. However, because the number of immigrants receiving this transfer has increased substantially, the total fiscal burden has risen from $16 to $24 billion in 2005, to $20 to $28 billion in 2010, to $27 to $35 billion in 2014. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/immigration-and-the-welfare-state-revisited-fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada-in-2014 Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 1 hour ago, dre said: This is all mindless gibberish. I could care less if we let muslims in or not, and I could care less about immigration levels either. This is your pet topic not mine. I just recognize that a lot of your reasoning is bogus. My life wont change much whether we curtail levels or increase them. And I have advocated changing immigration policy to focus more on economic migrants and less on refugees and family class migrants. I would be fine with that, but I really just don't think the whole issue is that important. And yet even though you could care less you rush forward to defend the status quo every time it's discussed, and project your obsession with race and identity politics into every single discussion. I suggested earlier that your problems with hiring construction people would improve if instead of bringing in so many people from Asia and the Middle east we brought in Portugese and Italian tradesmen. I don't think you replied to that because you couldn't deny it, but couldn't bring yourself to admit it either. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, Argus said: New data now available from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) has al-lowed us to update our earlier estimate in order to shed light on the success of the recent major steps taken by the Federal Government to improve the selection of new immigrants to improve their economic prospects. We found that the annual net fiscal transfer to recent immigrants is significantly lower at $5,329 per capita than the $6,000 we had found in our previous analysis. However, because the number of immigrants receiving this transfer has increased substantially, the total fiscal burden has risen from $16 to $24 billion in 2005, to $20 to $28 billion in 2010, to $27 to $35 billion in 2014. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/immigration-and-the-welfare-state-revisited-fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada-in-2014 Again that's only evidence of direct tax transfers. It doesn't take into account any of the other factors. I don't know why you keep posting that. Surely you arent trying to draw a conclusion on the economic impact of immigration based simply on taxation vs government spending??? That would be ludicrous. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, Argus said: And yet even though you could care less you rush forward to defend the status quo every time it's discussed, and project your obsession with race and identity politics into every single discussion. I suggested earlier that your problems with hiring construction people would improve if instead of bringing in so many people from Asia and the Middle east we brought in Portugese and Italian tradesmen. I don't think you replied to that because you couldn't deny it, but couldn't bring yourself to admit it either. I don't deny that could be true for construction tradesmen. That does not mean the economy does not need laborers as well. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
taxme Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 7 hours ago, hernanday said: Is morgentaler not white? White or not white, H. Morgentaler among many others of his ilk made millions of dollars killing babies. Morgentaler didn't care what color the baby would be, just let's abort it so I can make lots of money. And many white women went along with his killing of their babies. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Argus said: 1) I am not interested in expanding the economy if it doesn't improve the economic well-being of Canadians already here. 2) That this might profit a bank or construction company does not matter to me in the slightest. And yes, I recognize that more economic activity on their part means more taxes, but since the immigrants mean more government spending the only thing that matters is whether they balance, and right now they do not. I think with those two statements you're stepping past Dre's point. More taxes, more consumption and more economic activity are a plus. Maybe both sides of this can cite something at this point. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted April 12, 2017 Report Posted April 12, 2017 By cite something I'm talking about net benefits and so on. BTW . Morgentaler is off-topic, thanks. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Rue Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, taxme said: White or not white, H. Morgentaler among many others of his ilk made millions of dollars killing babies. Morgentaler didn't care what color the baby would be, just let's abort it so I can make lots of money. And many white women went along with his killing of their babies. Provide the proof of his income. You spew as usual unsubstantiated crap. Oh wait its off topic. Call him a Zionist though and they will put it in the thread on the mentally ill person from Israel who made death threats. It won't be off topic there. As long as you insert the word Jew, Israel or Zionist. Edited April 13, 2017 by Rue Quote
Argus Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 3 hours ago, dre said: Again that's only evidence of direct tax transfers. It doesn't take into account any of the other factors. I don't know why you keep posting that. Surely you arent trying to draw a conclusion on the economic impact of immigration based simply on taxation vs government spending??? That would be ludicrous. Why? How does a larger economy help me in any way, shape or form? What helps me is people paying taxes alongside me. What hurts me is people not paying taxes but consuming services. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: By cite something I'm talking about net benefits and so on. BTW . Morgentaler is off-topic, thanks. There ARE no net benefits to immigration. The government has never demonstrated any in the history of the program. It just SAYS there are. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Thinkinoutsidethebox Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 9 hours ago, dre said: The problem is that almost all Canadians already have jobs. So you are actually talking about training the ~5% of workers that havent been able to find gainful employment, or are too useless to even try. Canadians are as capable as anyone else, but yes... There's hundreds of thousands of people that have no real capacity to do anything at all. Some people are useless, and almost all the people that are not, are already employed. If most Canadians have jobs Canada should be running like a well oiled machine, it means Canada should be running at peak efficiency. When my people are running at full capacity it means I'm getting most bang for my buck. If I'm running a deficit I don't go out, borrow more money to buy more help. The "useless" ones need to be put to work, welfare shouldn't exist, these people should become employees of the state and be required to work for their money. Quote
dre Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said: If most Canadians have jobs Canada should be running like a well oiled machine, it means Canada should be running at peak efficiency. When my people are running at full capacity it means I'm getting most bang for my buck. If I'm running a deficit I don't go out, borrow more money to buy more help. The "useless" ones need to be put to work, welfare shouldn't exist, these people should become employees of the state and be required to work for their money. Well define "well oiled machine". We can all point to things about this country that we don't like, or that we think should change. But if you look at the big picture Canada is one of the most successful societies in the history of the human race. We have a high standard of life, safe streets, low crime, relatively high incomes, a relatively high life expectancy, and a relatively healthy and happy population. Welfare is actually a good program and an important part of why this is a good place to live. That's not to say there shouldn't be reforms... But I would not want to l live in a country that let its least successful citizens just die in a ditch somewhere. There IS countries like that though, and you could probably immigrate to one if you like. Edited April 13, 2017 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 15 hours ago, Argus said: There ARE no net benefits to immigration. The government has never demonstrated any in the history of the program. It just SAYS there are. Again that's a claim for which you have presented no real evidence. I definitely see a net gain. Without immigration "Canada" would be a collection of warring Indian tribes engaged in subsistence living. Magna International, BlackBerry, Saputo, Larco and Shopify are a few examples. All these are major corporations and employers that employ a large amount of Canadians... All created by immigrants to this country and there are many more. Got tell the people that work for those employers that there's no net gain. In fact... Immigrants are more likely to start a new business than people that were born here, and they are almost twice as likely to start a business that exports things. Most importantly immigrants to Canada help to disrupt our business practices. Canadians are not very good at selling stuff to the world, and tend to take the low risk approach of selling stuff to Canadians and Americans. Immigrants are the primary driver of whats known in economics as Schumpeter's gale. They cause us to rethink things and they cause our economy to change, and the cause new business models to destroy old ones. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I think with those two statements you're stepping past Dre's point. More taxes, more consumption and more economic activity are a plus. Maybe both sides of this can cite something at this point. Just to be clear I am not really on a "side". I don't know enough about this to present a really good argument, and I have never actually read any studies that take into account all the factors, especially in terms of macro economics. I actually think Argus is ultimately right. We could reform our immigration system to benefit all Canadians more. We should do it. Hes just really really bad at making a cohesive, salient argument. Instead of focusing on constructive reforms, he generalizes immigrants as a bunch of losers, and throws around terms like "goat herder", etc. These arguments appeal to one audience... racist losers and scumbags. And drawing conclusions based simply on taxes and government spending, is so asinine that even your average grade 3 student would know better. There was a study done by the University of Waterloo, and another by Simon Fraser that attempts to delve into the bigger picture. You can go and read them. I would like to see the following scenario considered. An immigrant moves to this country... they need a place to live which results in demand for a new housing unit. A developer recognizes that demand and they borrow money from a bank resulting in about 250 thousand dollars worth of brand new money being created. That money is used to employ carpenters, laborers, realtors, and about half of it is spent purchasing materials from Canadian suppliers which creates employment in forestry, mining, and many other areas. The immigrant moves into that dwelling, and once they are here they need to purchase food, clothing, and a host of other services. All of the people and companies involved in providing all of these products and services pay taxes (not one single bit of all this economic activity is considered by the Fraser report cited over and over again by idiots), and all them employ Canadians whether they are recent immigrants or the grand children of previous immigrants. I cant make any claim here! I don't know what the answer would be if we could conclusively evaluate all these factors. I don't have the data, and I don't have the skill or the knowledge to evaluate it even if I did. I just have enough common sense to know it needs to be considered. Maybe if you broke it all down it would turn out that Argus is right... Immigrants are a huge drain our society. I just don't find that likely. Edited April 13, 2017 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 6 hours ago, dre said: Again that's a claim for which you have presented no real evidence. Ahm, the request was for you to provide evidence there IS a net gain. Clearly that's not a request that's going to get answered, eh? 6 hours ago, dre said: I definitely see a net gain. Without immigration "Canada" would be a collection of warring Indian tribes engaged in subsistence living. Do you see a purpose behind the draft then? Maybe we should draft everyone at 18 and put them in them in the military to defend us from the Germans and Japanese. Oh wait... we don't need to do that anymore.... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 13, 2017 Report Posted April 13, 2017 6 hours ago, dre said: Just to be clear I am not really on a "side". I don't know enough about this to present a really good argument, and I have never actually read any studies that take into account all the factors, especially in terms of macro economics. No, you're just repeating the platitudes you've been fed by the government and media for decades and accepted as rote without a single working brain cell stopping to consider any evidence. I'll repeat what I've said before. Every government program, even tiny ones, has to have a justified business plan, a detailed recitation of what the program is for, why it's there, what it expects to accomplish, the milestones along the way where we can measure its progress, and whether it meets its objective. All except immigration. There is no detailed business plan for immigration. There are no studies which the government can point to to justify the amount, much less the types of immigrants we bring as economically necessary, or even economically worthwhile. The only time I'm aware of where any government actually asked for a study of immigration was when Tory immigration minister Barbara MacDougal asked the Economic Council of Canada to see if tripling immigration would help Canada's economy. They came back and said no. She tripled it anyway because she and the Tory cabinet believed newcomers vote for the party in power when they were brought in. 6 hours ago, dre said: I actually think Argus is ultimately right. We could reform our immigration system to benefit all Canadians more. We should do it. Hes just really really bad at making a cohesive, salient argument. Instead of focusing on constructive reforms, Not true. I've presented rational economic and socio/cultural reasons for redesigning immigration, for having demographics experts decide on how many immigrants, and studies on immigration performance and economic needs determine what type of immigrant we bring in. No one has been able to present a coherent, rational argument against it except that would be RACIST! 6 hours ago, dre said: he generalizes immigrants as a bunch of losers, and throws around terms like "goat herder", etc. These arguments appeal to one audience... racist losers and scumbags. And drawing conclusions based simply on taxes and government spending, is so asinine that even your average grade 3 student would know better. My argument is not designed for ultra leftists like you who would cut off your left arm before agreeing to diminish immigration. It's presented in a rational fashion and occasionally in language which might be too blunt for the dainty sensibilities of the social justice warrior set (for which I couldn't care less) but no one has ever been able to argue intelligently against it. You think judging by taxation, as represented by the economic performance of immigrants is stupid, given that the entire justification for bringing immigrants in is economic? And yet you admit you don't have a clue how to back up your certainty that they're a big benefit to the economy. That's not a coherent position, its mindless ideological zealotry. 6 hours ago, dre said: An immigrant moves to this country... they need a place to live which results in demand for a new housing unit. A developer recognizes that demand and they borrow money from a bank resulting in about 250 thousand dollars worth of brand new money being created. Through magic. Maybe if Harry Potter moves here you'd have a point. Until then, since you admit you don't know ANYTHING about the subject, why don't you stop showing off your lack of knowledge? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
herples Posted April 14, 2017 Report Posted April 14, 2017 On 4/12/2017 at 0:05 PM, Argus said: There is no skills shortage. If Canada wanted to do lets say longwall mining we would need to bring in foreign workers in order to do it. The example can be extended to any other industry. Quote
Argus Posted April 14, 2017 Report Posted April 14, 2017 12 hours ago, herples said: If Canada wanted to do lets say longwall mining we would need to bring in foreign workers in order to do it. The example can be extended to any other industry. But Canada doesn't want to do longwall mining. So who cares? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
herples Posted April 14, 2017 Report Posted April 14, 2017 48 minutes ago, Argus said: But Canada doesn't want to do longwall mining. So who cares? My point is Canada doesn't have a skilled worker for every job out there it sometimes has to come from outside of Canada. Quote
Argus Posted April 14, 2017 Report Posted April 14, 2017 3 hours ago, herples said: My point is Canada doesn't have a skilled worker for every job out there it sometimes has to come from outside of Canada. We bring in about 100k tfws for that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Thinkinoutsidethebox Posted April 16, 2017 Report Posted April 16, 2017 On 4/13/2017 at 10:48 AM, dre said: Well define "well oiled machine". We can all point to things about this country that we don't like, or that we think should change. But if you look at the big picture Canada is one of the most successful societies in the history of the human race. We have a high standard of life, safe streets, low crime, relatively high incomes, a relatively high life expectancy, and a relatively healthy and happy population. Welfare is actually a good program and an important part of why this is a good place to live. That's not to say there shouldn't be reforms... But I would not want to l live in a country that let its least successful citizens just die in a ditch somewhere. There IS countries like that though, and you could probably immigrate to one if you like. "Well oiled machine" as in we shouldn't be increasing our deficit and begging other countries to trade with us, exporting services and importing people to replace people we are paying too much to work efficiently (apparently). And where are we headed? Statistics show we are doing okay right now, but every day the middle class are taking more and more of the burden propping the poor and the wealthy. Ever think why people are killing themselves with opioids? My argument is we shouldn't be plunking people down in front of a TV if they can't find work, we are creating a time bomb if we don't give everyone a reason to live. And I mean everybody, able bodied or not, let's give them experience, education, a reason to get up in the morning. People can work from home, from a wheelchair etc. They can input data, digitize literature, cleanup and mow in parks and public places and so on. And this should start in our teens. Quote
Thinkinoutsidethebox Posted April 16, 2017 Report Posted April 16, 2017 On 4/13/2017 at 11:04 AM, dre said: In fact... Immigrants are more likely to start a new business than people that were born here, and they are almost twice as likely to start a business that exports things. That's an interesting phenomenon, anybody think to figure out why this is? Maybe it's time to figure out why we a raising a population that is not willing, educated, experienced or ambitious enough to be self starters... Quote
Argus Posted April 16, 2017 Report Posted April 16, 2017 13 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said: And where are we headed? Statistics show we are doing okay right now, but every day the middle class are taking more and more of the burden propping the poor and the wealthy. The top 10% of earners pay more than half of all taxes. I don't think you're propping them up. On the other hand, the bottom 50% are responsible for paying only 4% of taxes. Since hey consume all the government services as the middle class and rich - and likely a lot more - this would be the group being propped up. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.