Bloody immigrants, coming over here, paying their taxes

[mattmurdock]

Immigrants making the government money according to a new report.

[McWigglebum4th]

Which is why we need to have controlled immigration

So we can select the right ones

Not just the white ones from europe

[sidicks]

mattmurdock said:

Immigrants making the government money according to a new report.

But that is only half the story - you also need to deduct the cost of services consumed and the impact on infrastructure etc too!

[mattmurdock]

sidicks said:

But that is only half the story - you also need to deduct the cost of services consumed and the impact on infrastructure etc too!

This is already net of government services consumed, including a share of fixed costs the government would have to pay whether they were here or not. The authors did acknowledge that immigrants may cause local pressure and drive down wages, but that this was a minor economic impact compared to the economic benefit.

I think the point is supposed to be that the concept of immigrants costing money in benefits/services is not supported by the data. There may be very good social reasons to restrict immigration, but according to this report there are no real economic reasons to do so.

[PRTVR]

mattmurdock said:

sidicks said:

But that is only half the story - you also need to deduct the cost of services consumed and the impact on infrastructure etc too!

This is already net of government services consumed, including a share of fixed costs the government would have to pay whether they were here or not. The authors did acknowledge that immigrants may cause local pressure and drive down wages, but that this was a minor economic impact compared to the economic benefit.

I think the point is supposed to be that the concept of immigrants costing money in benefits/services is not supported by the data. There may be very good social reasons to restrict immigration, but according to this report there are no real economic reasons to do so.

Or the Government cannot do anything about immigration, so the only option is spin, and keep on spinning it in the hope the counties concerns over immigration goes away.

[powerstroke]

PRTVR said:

Or the Government cannot do anything about immigration, so the only option is spin, and keep on spinning it in the hope the counties concerns over immigration goes away.

This .

[mattmurdock]

powerstroke said:

PRTVR said:

Or the Government cannot do anything about immigration, so the only option is spin, and keep on spinning it in the hope the counties concerns over immigration goes away.

This .

I guess you missed the bit where this report was already held back by the government for being too 'pro-european' and was re-written a few times.

Try challenging the data rather than perpetuating lazy thinking.

[Guybrush]

The talk about restricting immigration is all about wanting to choose who comes in; so the social and economic issues can be balanced. That way, we can avoid recent immigrant beggars asking leaders of political parties for spare change. Australia is a good example of a country which quite happily accepts immigrants, but those who fit a profile they determine according to needs (and this profile varies from time to time). The left will always howl that it's racism and imply that talk is of a total block, but that's typical of them - to exaggerate, shout down and belittle their opposing view.

[DMN]

mattmurdock said:

perpetuating lazy thinking.

Are you new round here?

[PRTVR]

mattmurdock said:

powerstroke said:

PRTVR said:

Or the Government cannot do anything about immigration, so the only option is spin, and keep on spinning it in the hope the counties concerns over immigration goes away.

This .

I guess you missed the bit where this report was already held back by the government for being too 'pro-european' and was re-written a few times.

Try challenging the data rather than perpetuating lazy thinking.

Most people are aware that data can be made to display any agenda, the facts are Dave has been told he cannot change the free movement of labour in the EU, now a report comes out explaining immigration is good for the country, amazing coincidence is it not?

[sidicks]

mattmurdock said:

This is already net of government services consumed, including a share of fixed costs the government would have to pay whether they were here or not. The authors did acknowledge that immigrants may cause local pressure and drive down wages, but that this was a minor economic impact compared to the economic benefit.

I think the point is supposed to be that the concept of immigrants costing money in benefits/services is not supported by the data. There may be very good social reasons to restrict immigration, but according to this report there are no real economic reasons to do so.

We know from other surveys that the 'top 30%' or so effectively subsidise the remaining 70% in terms of the value of benefits and services received compared to taxes paid.

These figures are therefore suggesting that the average EU immigrant (who we basically have no control over when they come here and what they do when they are here) is in that top 30%.

That seems highly unlikely. It presumably also doesn't take into account that those who are here working are potentially taking the job of a local who therefore is claiming benefits.


Particularly when they also claim that non-EU immigration, where we actually do have a say in who we let in, is a net cost.

I'm totally in favour of immigration, but it has to be controlled (eg Australian system) not this disastrous current approach.

[mattmurdock]

sidicks said:

Particularly when they also claim that non-EU immigration, where we actually do have a say in who we let in, is a net cost.

Where do they say that? According to the report, all of the immigration categories they looked at (new EU in last 10 years, existing EU and non-EU) were a net benefit rather than cost.

[PorkInsider]

mattmurdock said:

sidicks said:

Particularly when they also claim that non-EU immigration, where we actually do have a say in who we let in, is a net cost.

Where do they say that? According to the report, all of the immigration categories they looked at (new EU in last 10 years, existing EU and non-EU) were a net benefit rather than cost.

Are you sure?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...

[ATG]

PRTVR said:

Most people are aware that data can be made to display any agenda, the facts are Dave has been told he cannot change the free movement of labour in the EU, now a report comes out explaining immigration is good for the country, amazing coincidence is it not?

There are certainly a lot of people who wouldn't know if the data they were given was reasonable. But that reflects their lack of judgement. You say that includes "most people". Sadly all that means is that their opinions are worthless.

[zygalski]

mattmurdock said:

powerstroke said:

PRTVR said:

Or the Government cannot do anything about immigration, so the only option is spin, and keep on spinning it in the hope the counties concerns over immigration goes away.

This .

I guess you missed the bit where this report was already held back by the government for being too 'pro-european' and was re-written a few times.

Try challenging the data rather than perpetuating lazy thinking.

Goes without saying that these PH'ers have read & digested the 50 page report
http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

[mattmurdock]

PorkInsider said:

Are you sure?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...

OK, fair enough, I was looking at Preston's blog in which he states all of the categories produced net benefit, but (as with all these things) based on the selection of dates the figures can tell a number of different stories. The Telegraph is going with the Andrew Green approach of looking at the older immigrants and declaring a net cost, whereas the BBC is looking at figures since 2001 and declaring a net benefit in all categories.

Thus it ever was. I stand by the point that recent immigration is not a net cost, but concede that of the immigrants stay until they die the costs will increase.

It just shows that nothing in life is simple.

[jogon]

Don't forget the £5 billion, in tax credits, we use to subsidise them working here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...

[Asterix]

McWigglebum4th said:

Which is why we need to have controlled immigration

So we can select the right ones

Not just the white ones from europe

I've never understood why this isn't simply implemented immediately without any argument.

Tell the EU to do one and get it done.

Many countries elsewhere have similar policies. I live in one, the UAE - no job, no visa.

[king arthur]

The report presumably doesn't take account of the likelihood that immigrants send a proportion of the money they earn back home to their families in the countries they originated from.

[AJS-]

So why not abandon immigration controls completely and reap the benefits of allowing anyone and everyone in the world to live and work in the UK if they wish?