Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The same way anyone else increases GDP - assuming they're working.
The person works and presumably produces something of value for someone which'll contribute to the overall output of the country. In turn, they'll also be paid and spend in the economy generating further demand and in theory futher work (which will lead to more output, more spending and so on).
|
And if that person wasn't in this country, would that job mysteriously not exist? But how much of that tax is from income that non-immigrants would have earned instead. It's not exactly new income that wouldn't have existed if they hadn't come here. Maybe some of it, simply from the extra demand of extra people being here. Then you have to factor in the money they send abroad. The effect of that is many times the amount involved. Normally money will pass from A to B to C etc within this country. They all earn an income with the same money. If it goes from A to B and then out of the country, it is lost income and GDP for this country.
Just generating further demand is a nonsense argument. You could allow in 10m people, and it would magically increase demand, but NOT where the money to pay for that demand came from. As a total GDP figure, the economy of China looks great compared to the UK, but look at the GDP per person, and it's another matter. Scotland has a lower GDP than Bangladesh. Which would you say is the richer country?
Scotland's GDP per person is the region of 20 times higher.
Eg A TV programme a few years ago. Slovakian Roma couple came over with TWENTY-TWO of their children and grandchildren. All housed in several homes, all receiving benefits of one sort or another(only one had a job), needing taxpayer funded interpreters and support officers etc. Now add in SIX THOUSAND others had also come over and were living in Rotherham. Another example was a guy from Romania came over, intending to stay just for a year, claim enough benefits to send £10,000 back to Romania, to do up his house there. They will have all added to total GDP, but it will have had to be funded by public borrowing.
The wealthier of the Hong Kong residents will likely have kept their heads down and not be at risk. In order to realise their assets, they would have to sell them to somebody else. Who would be buying?