Economy crisis resolved

[Ants]

Please find below my suggestion for fixing Britain's economy.

Instead of giving billions of pounds to banks that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 20 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them £1 million each severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Twenty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new British CAR. Twenty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

4) They MUST send their kids to school/college/university - Crime rate fixed

5) They MUST buy £50 of alcohol/tobacco a week - there's your money back in duty/tax etc :thumbsup:

It can't get any easier than that! :cool2:

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances.:grr::grr:

[Woody1985]

I'm not quite sure how to explain this but it would actually make things worse (IMO).

Because you'd suddenly have loads of millionaires running around spending wads of cash at once the price of goods would go up meaning that the ordinary people i.e non millionaires wouldn't be able to afford anything. They would also stick a large amount of it away (as they're now retired). What about an over 50 making 300k a year. Does he want to retire for a million quid when he's got 10/15 years left in him?

No doubt Andy74 could probably give a lot more reasons than this but that's pretty much the jist of it.

If it was that easy there would be no recession.

Is your name Alastair?

Edit; forgot to laught at the 20 million job openings. :LOL: If there are 4 million unemployed, some of which don't want to work, how do you do the 16/17/18 million jobs that are left over. :faf:

I'm guessing this was a wind up.

[ancienthibby]

Please find below my suggestion for fixing Britain's economy.

Instead of giving billions of pounds to banks that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 20 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them £1 million each severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Twenty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new British CAR. Twenty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

4) They MUST send their kids to school/college/university - Crime rate fixed

5) They MUST buy £50 of alcohol/tobacco a week - there's your money back in duty/tax etc :thumbsup:

It can't get any easier than that! :cool2:

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances.:grr::grr:

Let's just make a few points about this item, that may also serve to discredit your other points:

The worldwide auto industry is most grossly overstocked, with zero possibility that it can continue on the same path.

There has to be a massive restructuring of the industry that will make the GM bankruptcy look like mere teardrops!

There are hardly enough roads for the cars that exist anyway.

There are not enough landfill sites in the world to accommodate the cars that need to be scrapped!

[PC Stamp]

Let's just make a few points about this item, that may also serve to discredit your other points:

The worldwide auto industry is most grossly overstocked, with zero possibility that it can continue on the same path.

There has to be a massive restructuring of the industry that will make the GM bankruptcy look like mere teardrops!

There are hardly enough roads for the cars that exist anyway.There are not enough landfill sites in the world to accommodate the cars that need to be scrapped!


Hear hear .... I vote that we spend £450M on half a tram line! :thumbsup:

[IWasThere2016]

Please find below my suggestion for fixing Britain's economy.

Instead of giving billions of pounds to banks that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 20 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them £1 million each severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Twenty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new British CAR. Twenty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed.

4) They MUST send their kids to school/college/university - Crime rate fixed

5) They MUST buy £50 of alcohol/tobacco a week - there's your money back in duty/tax etc :thumbsup:

It can't get any easier than that! :cool2:

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back their falsely claimed expenses and second home allowances.:grr::grr:

I've seen this email too ..

We have under 3 million unemployed so we don't need 20 million new retirees.

We'd get is more immigrants in a country that is already over-populated and has an infrasturture which doesn't work e.g. health, education and transport

If they choose to pay off their (likely to be minimal) mortgages and not move then there's no eleviation of the housing problem.

We need fewer cars/car manufacturers.

Do the over 50's have many kids that aren't at school/education and involved in crime?

Many over 50's spend £50 on alcohol/nicotine .. that's the way that generation grew up

Other than that the plan is perfect! :greengrin

[fergal7]

Superb idea!!

[RyeSloan]

Total nonsense but reasonably amusing maybe.

Dunno why people can't grasp the idea that the banking sector is probably the only industry worthy of public money to stop it failing as the consequences are so deep that they would cause no end of misery.

Still anything else (be that health, transport, water, electric, education etc etc etc) is fully deserving and is a disgrace that its not nationalised. :rolleyes:

[Ants]

Lighten up a bit boys n girls.
This was just an amusing little ditty that I wished to share....

[Betty Boop]

I've seen this email too ..

We have under 3 million unemployed so we don't need 20 million new retirees.

We'd get is more immigrants in a country that is already over-populated and has an infrasturture which doesn't work e.g. health, education and transport

If they choose to pay off their (likely to be minimal) mortgages and not move then there's no eleviation of the housing problem.

We need fewer cars/car manufacturers.

Do the over 50's have many kids that aren't at school/education and involved in crime?

Many over 50's spend £50 on alcohol/nicotine .. that's the way that generation grew up

Other than that the plan is perfect! :greengrin
Scotland is under populated, we need more immigration.

[Woody1985]

Scotland is under populated, we need more immigration.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I'm just interested as I have close family all whom have lost out on work due to cheap labour from eastern Europeon countries. One example of this is a construction manager paid off his entire crew and hired labour from elsewhere at a 3rd of the cost. He paid off people who have worked with him for years and left 12 people without work.

Immigration is meant to fill gaps in a countries workforce, not replace it.

[Mibbes Aye]

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I'm just interested as I have close family all whom have lost out on work due to cheap labour from eastern Europeon countries. One example of this is a construction manager paid off his entire crew and hired labour from elsewhere at a 3rd of the cost. He paid off people who have worked with him for years and left 12 people without work.

Immigration is meant to fill gaps in a countries workforce, not replace it.

The thing is, where it's workers from other EU countries, it's a false position to look at it as 'immigration'. Freedom of movement within the EU means that it doesn't matter if you're a joiner from Cracow or Coventry, you can go and work in Cannes.

The issue seems clearly to be around income differentials, which have perhaps made it more efficient for employers to take on Eastern European workers. If the market works, these differentials should even themselves out over time, one way or the other

[IWasThere2016]

Scotland is under populated, we need more immigration.

I was refering to the UK .. Scotland's doesnt have 20 million > 50 y/o :cool2:

[Woody1985]

The thing is, where it's workers from other EU countries, it's a false position to look at it as 'immigration'. Freedom of movement within the EU means that it doesn't matter if you're a joiner from Cracow or Coventry, you can go and work in Cannes.

The issue seems clearly to be around income differentials, which have perhaps made it more efficient for employers to take on Eastern European workers. If the market works, these differentials should even themselves out over time, one way or the other

Tell that to the guys who were earning £500/£600 a week for highly skilled jobs who were left with no work. Where do they go to even themselves out.

I have no issue with people moving here to make more money and a better life for themselves it just shouldn't be done at the expense of others.

Can anyone answer this as I genuinely don't know. It's well documented that a lot of the money earned here is sent back to families in the workers home countries, effectively boosting their economy. Does that have a negative effect on our economy as the money isn't being spent here?

Also, would it be possible to find out how much money is transferred out of our economy due to the increase in immigration?

Does it also mean that the guys who run the businesses that replace workers end up making a lot more as they have less staff costs. Meaning that less people end up with more of the wealth creating a bigger class divide?

[Mibbes Aye]

Tell that to the guys who were earning £500/£600 a week for highly skilled jobs who were left with no work. Where do they go to even themselves out.

I have no issue with people moving here to make more money and a better life for themselves it just shouldn't be done at the expense of others.



I have sympathy for anyone who finds themselves losing their job through circumstances outwith their control.

But the bigger picture is we signed up to freedom of trade and freedom of movement because overall it is seen to benefit us. To complain about someone from Poland being cheaper is as irrelevant as it being someone from Penzance or Polbeth, in the grand scheme of things.

If you live in a town or village where the only food supplier is the local shop, then all of a sudden Tesco open a store that undercuts them on exactly the same items, do your principles outweigh your financial interest? Maybe you can afford to. But what if you run a business where you need to shop at one or the other? Where are you going to go?

And when Asda open a store and undercut Tesco on exactly the same items, do you switch to them or do you stick by Tesco (or the local shop?). Bearing in mind you're trying to run a business...

The nature of increased competition or increased supply should be to drive prices down, it's basic stuff. Unfortunately for those who found they are priced at the top of the market, the only realistic options are to cut costs or lose out. The EU-driven deregulation of the airways (based on the same principles of freedom of trade) cost plenty jobs in the airline industy but we didn't complain too loudly because suddenly the cost of our flights tumbled.

[PeeJay]

Tell that to the guys who were earning £500/£600 a week for highly skilled jobs who were left with no work. Where do they go to even themselves out.

I have no issue with people moving here to make more money and a better life for themselves it just shouldn't be done at the expense of others.

Can anyone answer this as I genuinely don't know. It's well documented that a lot of the money earned here is sent back to families in the workers home countries, effectively boosting their economy. Does that have a negative effect on our economy as the money isn't being spent here?

Also, would it be possible to find out how much money is transferred out of our economy due to the increase in immigration?

Does it also mean that the guys who run the businesses that replace workers end up making a lot more as they have less staff costs. Meaning that less people end up with more of the wealth creating a bigger class divide?

The EU right of free movement for workers works both ways: EU citizens can come here if they so choose, and UK citizens can go anywhere in the EU to do the same. Believe me, there are lots of British people working and living in the EU outside the UK! So perhaps - with regard to 'immigration' - you should factor that aspect into your considerations?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Tell that to the guys who were earning £500/£600 a week for highly skilled jobs who were left with no work. Where do they go to even themselves out.

I have no issue with people moving here to make more money and a better life for themselves it just shouldn't be done at the expense of others.

Can anyone answer this as I genuinely don't know. It's well documented that a lot of the money earned here is sent back to families in the workers home countries, effectively boosting their economy. Does that have a negative effect on our economy as the money isn't being spent here?

Also, would it be possible to find out how much money is transferred out of our economy due to the increase in immigration?

Does it also mean that the guys who run the businesses that replace workers end up making a lot more as they have less staff costs. Meaning that less people end up with more of the wealth creating a bigger class divide?

Yes, in short.

I think Mibbes Aye is right to say it's not really about immigration but (and this is where we will disagree, I should think) about employers making the most of the neo-liberalism enshrined in British and European economic policy and Labour Law. Talking about in terms of immigration (or, indeed, 'British Jobs For British Workers') is extremely unhelpful and divisive.

It's an exploitation of the differences in pay and conditions across the E.U. and a fine way to completely circumvent (shock horror) collective bargaining in exchange for competition over who will do a particular job for the least amount of money. A 'race to the bottom', to steal a phrase. Sub-contracting, as one example, lends itself perfectly to this end.

[sleeping giant]

Scotland is under populated, we need more immigration.
What gives you the impression that Scotland is under populated ?
Who says ?
How many should we have ?
Why should we have that many ?

[PeeJay]

What gives you the impression that Scotland is under populated ?
Who says ?
How many should we have ?
Why should we have that many ?

Not sure about Scottish demographics anymore, but I assume it's the same problem as over here in Germany - basically it's too many old people, and too few 'youngsters'.

This roughly translates into too many old people on pensions, living longer lives, using up more and more services etc. contrasted with too few younger people in work paying taxes to support the systems that pay for all these services and pensions. The burden on the dwindling younger generation increases.

The birth rate has been outsripped by the increase in life expectancy - so immigrants are one way of solving the imbalance: the other way is to make more Scottish babies - or over here German ones!:agree:

[sleeping giant]

Not sure about Scottish demographics anymore, but I assume it's the same problem as over here in Germany - basically it's too many old people, and too few 'youngsters'.

This roughly translates into too many old people on pensions, living longer lives, using up more and more services etc. contrasted with too few younger people in work paying taxes to support the systems that pay for all these services and pensions. The burden on the dwindling younger generation increases.

The birth rate has been outsripped by the increase in life expectancy - so immigrants are one way of solving the imbalance: the other way is to make more Scottish babies - or over here German ones!:agree:

Cheers for all that:greengrin

I had a feeling it would be economy driven.

I dont believe in increasing population for economic reasons.

[Woody1985]

The EU right of free movement for workers works both ways: EU citizens can come here if they so choose, and UK citizens can go anywhere in the EU to do the same. Believe me, there are lots of British people working and living in the EU outside the UK! So perhaps - with regard to 'immigration' - you should factor that aspect into your considerations?

They can but generally we have the best pay and working conditions so why should they be forced to move?

I have looked at the stats for the last ten to 15 years and net immigration has been increasing each year and IIRC there are now about 270,000 people coming in each year more than there are going out.

[Betty Boop]

What gives you the impression that Scotland is under populated ?
Who says ?
How many should we have ?
Why should we have that many ?
The Scottish Executive, as Peejay said, people are living much longer and the birth rate has decreased dramatically in the last 40 years.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22969.php

[Sir David Gray]

Scotland is under populated, we need more immigration.

We are probably slightly under-populated. However, there are approximately 65 people per square kilometre in Scotland. If you compare that to the world as a whole (land only), where there are approximately 45 people per square kilometre, it doesn't seem quite so low.

I've got no problems with the idea of immigration, but it must be controlled and regulated which, of course, is not possible for an EU member country to do. I do not wish to see us end up like England, where the immigration issue, especially in and around the London area, is really out of control.

Then we also have to consider what kind of country Scotland is, in terms of terrain etc. Much of the country, outwith the Central Belt, is made up of mountains, hills and farmland. It would therefore be quite difficult to accommodate immigration on any significant scale.

Immigrants should also be coming to the country to fill a shortage of workers in a particular sector and/or be highly skilled. There's no point in allowing people to come in if they are low skilled and have no real prospect of getting a job.


The EU right of free movement for workers works both ways: EU citizens can come here if they so choose, and UK citizens can go anywhere in the EU to do the same. Believe me, there are lots of British people working and living in the EU outside the UK! So perhaps - with regard to 'immigration' - you should factor that aspect into your considerations?

You're right, it does work both ways but I'm not really interested in how it affects other countries, my only concern is about this country. If other countries are also unhappy with the freedom of movement laws, then that is up to them and from my point of view they would be well within their rights to think in such a way.

Each individual country should be able to decide for themselves who does/does not come through their borders and we cannot do that as a member of the European Union.

[PeeJay]

You're right, it does work both ways but I'm not really interested in how it affects other countries, my only concern is about this country.


But surely this does affect your country? "British" citizens are free to move anywhere within the EU, as I say there are plenty of Brits working, living, studying and buying property all over the EU. Many of these people will return to the UK all the better for the experience of having lived and worked abroad.


2 points with regard to the immigration aspect:

1) I'm a British citizen living in Germany, I don't consider myself to be an immigrant here - I have a right to be here: this is the law as it stands. This also applies to other citizens of the EU moving, e.g. from France to the UK, or whatever.

2) Asylum seekers or citizens from outwith the EU should be viewed and treated differently to people who are EU citizens.

Generally, I feel there should be greater differentiation made between citizens who have a right to be in a country (i.e. EU citizens) and those who apply to emigrate legally to the UK (non EU citizens) or those who apply for asylum.

[Sir David Gray]

But surely this does affect your country? "British" citizens are free to move anywhere within the EU, as I say there are plenty of Brits working, living, studying and buying property all over the EU. Many of these people will return to the UK all the better for the experience of having lived and worked abroad.


2 points with regard to the immigration aspect:

1) I'm a British citizen living in Germany, I don't consider myself to be an immigrant here - I have a right to be here: this is the law as it stands. This also applies to other citizens of the EU moving, e.g. from France to the UK, or whatever.

2) Asylum seekers or citizens from outwith the EU should be viewed and treated differently to people who are EU citizens.

Generally, I feel there should be greater differentiation made between citizens who have a right to be in a country (i.e. EU citizens) and those who apply to emigrate legally to the UK (non EU citizens) or those who apply for asylum.

If two people, let's say for argument's sake one comes from South Africa and the other from France, wanted to come to the UK to live and work, I do not see why the South African's application should be treated any differently from the Frenchman's.

The same would apply in the reverse. If I wanted to leave the UK, I would expect French authorities to treat my application for entering France in the same way as South African authorities would treat my application for entering their country.

Also, if I went to live in France, I would say I was an immigrant.

To me, a foreign national is a foreign national, regardless of where in the world they come from.

I have no problems with having close ties with European countries, I just object to being in this straitjacket where we are effectively part of this one huge nation and we are forced to adopt laws that aren't even made in this country.

[RyeSloan]

If two people, let's say for argument's sake one comes from South Africa and the other from France, wanted to come to the UK to live and work, I do not see why the South African's application should be treated any differently from the Frenchman's.

The same would apply in the reverse. If I wanted to leave the UK, I would expect French authorities to treat my application for entering France in the same way as South African authorities would treat my application for entering their country.

Also, if I went to live in France, I would say I was an immigrant.

To me, a foreign national is a foreign national, regardless of where in the world they come from.

I have no problems with having close ties with European countries, I just object to being in this straitjacket where we are effectively part of this one huge nation and we are forced to adopt laws that aren't even made in this country.

How narrow minded.

So you cannot see that under something like the EU that the benefits of a flexible labour market could significantly improve that regions well being.

Closing borders and making immigration too tough will only encourage even more illegal immigration so I think freedom of labour within the EU has been probably the EU's best move (although I admit that the expansion of the EU beyond traditionally western countries has strained this ideal somewhat)

I think it is quite fair and proper to differentiate between countries and it's population that have aligned values and goals under an agreed framework than to those coutries and population that might not. You might call it a pratical real world solution compared to your shut the door and pretend they are not there ideal.

[CropleyWasGod]

If two people, let's say for argument's sake one comes from South Africa and the other from France, wanted to come to the UK to live and work, I do not see why the South African's application should be treated any differently from the Frenchman's.

The same would apply in the reverse. If I wanted to leave the UK, I would expect French authorities to treat my application for entering France in the same way as South African authorities would treat my application for entering their country.

Also, if I went to live in France, I would say I was an immigrant.

To me, a foreign national is a foreign national, regardless of where in the world they come from.

I have no problems with having close ties with European countries, I just object to being in this straitjacket where we are effectively part of this one huge nation and we are forced to adopt laws that aren't even made in this country.

... and one could say the same about the UK parliament too, no?

The laws are made by democratically elected representatives, that you and I have put there.

SiMar has put my other points, probably better than I could. The whole point of the EU is the greater good for all its citizens.

[Sir David Gray]

How narrow minded.

So you cannot see that under something like the EU that the benefits of a flexible labour market could significantly improve that regions well being.

Closing borders and making immigration too tough will only encourage even more illegal immigration so I think freedom of labour within the EU has been probably the EU's best move (although I admit that the expansion of the EU beyond traditionally western countries has strained this ideal somewhat)

I think it is quite fair and proper to differentiate between countries and it's population that have aligned values and goals under an agreed framework than to those coutries and population that might not. You might call it a pratical real world solution compared to your shut the door and pretend they are not there ideal.

There's already almost one million illegal immigrants across the UK right now. I don't see how the problem could be so much worse if we left the EU. As an island, it would surely be easier for us to control our borders than it would be for a landlocked nation.

As for having "aligned values and goals under an agreed framework," surely that is possible to do outwith the EU. We could set up agreements with other European nations whenever it suits us, without being told by Brussels when to do it.

We share similar values with countries such as Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand, (I would say that we have closer ties to them than we have with the likes of Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria) but I wouldn't suggest for one moment that we should all have the same parliament and laws etc.

As you intimated, it wasn't quite so bad when it was just Western European countries but the EU has spread quite a lot in recent years. Let's just take a look at the countries who are hoping to gain member status;

Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia.

I'll let you decide for yourself how many benefits those countries are likely to bring to the table.

One thing's for sure, there will be many Croatians, Macedonians, Turks, Albanians, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Serbs looking to take advantage of the freedom of labour law by moving to the UK. I'm not sure there will be too many Brits looking to go in the opposite direction.


... and one could say the same about the UK parliament too, no?

The laws are made by democratically elected representatives, that you and I have put there.

SiMar has put my other points, probably better than I could. The whole point of the EU is the greater good for all its citizens.

One could say the same about the UK parliament. I have no problems with the idea of Scottish independence but not if it means that, after having pulled out from Westminster, the first thing we do is apply for Scottish membership of the EU.

As I said in another thread, that sort of defeats the whole purpose of independence, in my book.

I know that we do democratically elect some of the MEP's, (72) but there are 736 MEP's in total, which means we, in the UK, elect less than 10% of the parliament. The other 90% are elected by other foreign nations.

I know that applies to every member of the EU but I'm looking at it purely from a UK perspective.

[sleeping giant]

The Scottish Executive, as Peejay said, people are living much longer and the birth rate has decreased dramatically in the last 40 years.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22969.php

Not in my world Betty !!
The problem exists due to the system we are ruled by.:greengrin

Money,money,money,money.

Its time we took back these once proud lands:greengrin

[Marabou Stork]

I've got no problems with the idea of immigration, but it must be controlled and regulated which, of course, is not possible for an EU member country to do. I do not wish to see us end up like England, where the immigration issue, especially in and around the London area, is really out of control.
I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. In no way, shape or form, is immigration out of control in the London area. London is the city it is today solely because of immigration. I'm genuinely nonplussed as to how people in this countrydon't view immigration in a positive light. I love it in London with the different views that immigration brings. Life would be massively boring if there were only people from our own ethnic group in our country. Variety is the spice of life.