Bloody immigrants, coming over here, paying their taxes
Discussion
AJS- said:
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?
Well exactly. You could probably take any section of the working indigenous population and show that they are a net benefit to the UK economy, but it wouldn't really prove anything.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?
Sorry but that's a logical fallacy.. just because statistics can be used for an agenda doesn't mean they always are, and doesn't mean they have in this report. CamMoreRon said:
Sorry but that's a logical fallacy.. just because statistics can be used for an agenda doesn't mean they always are, and doesn't mean they have in this report.
But the fact that the statistics contradict other previous reports and, to some extent, common sense does put some doubt on the accuracy of the claims...sidicks said:
But the fact that the statistics contradict other previous reports and, to some extent, common sense does put some doubt on the accuracy of the claims...
Well.. perhaps those other reports manipulated statistics? Why does it have to be the report whose outcome you object to that is inaccurate?ETA - A lot of things counter "common sense" but are true. Have you ever read in to Quantum Physics? "Common sense" is nothing but the assumption we make based on our experiences so far.
CamMoreRon said:
Well.. perhaps those other reports manipulated statistics? Why does it have to be the report whose outcome you object to that is inaccurate?
ETA - A lot of things counter "common sense" but are true. Have you ever read in to Quantum Physics? "Common sense" is nothing but the assumption we make based on our experiences so far.
Yes, I studied a course in quantum physics at universityETA - A lot of things counter "common sense" but are true. Have you ever read in to Quantum Physics? "Common sense" is nothing but the assumption we make based on our experiences so far.
CamMoreRon said:
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?
Sorry but that's a logical fallacy.. just because statistics can be used for an agenda doesn't mean they always are, and doesn't mean they have in this report. Evidence is needed to show that this isn't simply a case of the government failing to meet its objective, so is spinning things to show it doesn't need to any more. If there is no evidence then I would tend to that opinion, with good reason.
As an aside, given the total spends and costs in this area, £0.5B a year is well withing any rational margin for error, so is fairly meaningless in context.
I've just watched the chap who produced the report on TV. He said that it's not only EU migrants, but non-EU migrants that give a net benefit. That's his credibility down the swanny straight away. Anybody that deals with 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like I do, mainly from former Eastern block countries that have arrived in the last few years, know that they are putting an immense strain on all our public services.
I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.
I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.
Sir Andrew Green chairman of pressure group Migration Watch said:
As for recent European migrants, even on their own figures, which we dispute, their contribution to the Exchequer amounts to less than £1 per week per head of our population.
If you need to reduce national data down to a per person/per week fig to make it look bad, I just presume you have lost the argument.Elroy Blue said:
I've just watched the chap who produced the report on TV. He said that it's not only EU migrants, but non-EU migrants that give a net benefit. That's his credibility down the swanny straight away. Anybody that deals with 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like I do, mainly from former Eastern block countries that have arrived in the last few years, know that they are putting an immense strain on all our public services.
I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.
Apparently the Guy who did the report was the same guy who was totally wrong in 2003, when he reported to the government that the number of eastern Europeans that would come to this country would be around 13000. Shows he is not very good with numbers and may have an agenda. I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.
jogon said:
Don't forget the £5 billion, in tax credits, we use to subsidise them working here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...
+http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...
Illegal immigrants use £3.7billion worth of taxpayer-funded health and education services every year, figures out yesterday suggest.
Elroy Blue said:
I've just watched the chap who produced the report on TV. He said that it's not only EU migrants, but non-EU migrants that give a net benefit. That's his credibility down the swanny straight away. Anybody that deals with 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like I do, mainly from former Eastern block countries that have arrived in the last few years, know that they are putting an immense strain on all our public services.
I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.
So your anecdotes trump his research? Given this chap had previous research that showed immigration was reducing wages and job opportunities for the native population, it can hardly be said that he is looking to promote immigration wholeheartedly. He appears to have set out to check if the concern about migrants 'paying their fair share' is based on data, and found that since 2001 they are actually a net benefit overall regardless of where they came from.I don't know of any other country that would put up with it.
Now that doesn't mean they are blameless in social problems, language ghettos, increased criminality or any of the other measures that could be used to determine if 'unchecked' immigration is a good thing. It just means, based on the methodology that was used, that recent migrants are providing an economic benefit to the country.
If you have an issue with the methodology then raise it. I sympathize with the concern on criminal behaviour of low-skilled migrants, but you have to acknowledge that your personal experience is going to be skewed towards the negative, simply because the law abiding migrants will not be interacting with you.
Elroy Blue said:
Anybody that deals with 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like I do, mainly from former Eastern block countries that have arrived in the last few years, know that they are putting an immense strain on all our public services.
Anybody who collects tax from 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like my mate John, knows that they are putting a shed load of money into our economy.mattmurdock said:
So your anecdotes trump his research? Given this chap had previous research that showed immigration was reducing wages and job opportunities for the native population, it can hardly be said that he is looking to promote immigration wholeheartedly. He appears to have set out to check if the concern about migrants 'paying their fair share' is based on data, and found that since 2001 they are actually a net benefit overall regardless of where they came from.
Now that doesn't mean they are blameless in social problems, language ghettos, increased criminality or any of the other measures that could be used to determine if 'unchecked' immigration is a good thing. It just means, based on the methodology that was used, that recent migrants are providing an economic benefit to the country.
If you have an issue with the methodology then raise it. I sympathize with the concern on criminal behaviour of low-skilled migrants, but you have to acknowledge that your personal experience is going to be skewed towards the negative, simply because the law abiding migrants will not be interacting with you.
Ah yes, 'research'. I'm sure if UKIP did some 'research', they're findings would be entirely different. I'll prefer the accuracy of what I see every day, because that's not 'research', it's plain old fact.Now that doesn't mean they are blameless in social problems, language ghettos, increased criminality or any of the other measures that could be used to determine if 'unchecked' immigration is a good thing. It just means, based on the methodology that was used, that recent migrants are providing an economic benefit to the country.
If you have an issue with the methodology then raise it. I sympathize with the concern on criminal behaviour of low-skilled migrants, but you have to acknowledge that your personal experience is going to be skewed towards the negative, simply because the law abiding migrants will not be interacting with you.
Chimune said:
Anybody who collects tax from 'legal' migrants on a daily basis like my mate John, knows that they are putting a shed load of money into our economy.
And the thousands in the black economy who claim for their 23 children living in Romania. The rampant abuse of housing benefit. Who exactly is 'benefiting' from these migrants. It's certainly not the people queuing to get an appointment at their doctors, or Police Forces who cannot deal with crime because they're swamped dealing with an influx of immigrantssidicks said:
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.
Lazy thinking rules again.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.
While I believe the rich pay a higher percentage of income as tax than the less rich However, there are very few rich and a lot of normal people so normal people pay a high percentage of the total tax take.
As for the cost of EU immigrants that always difficult to calculate but evidence suggests they are younger than average age in the UK. Which means they are less likely to be sick or have children.
So if we look at the 3big costs, health, education and social.
Its highly likely EU immigrants costs health costs are below average.
Its also likely they have below average education costs.
With regard to social benefits.
They maybe entitled to £90 job seekers allowance. But with the costs of housing in the UK this will not be a draw just a short term help while finding jobs.
As for in work benefits, child allowance, working tax credit, these are less than the tax taken in all but extreme cases. And a for the reasons above these are likely to be lower for EU immigrants.
So its more than likely EU immigrants are contributing to UK economy.
As for non EU immigrants, I believe about 40% are non work, mainly marriage visas. By definition its likely these will have a higher cost.
As for the comments about services etc since people move all the time across the UK I do not believe this is a problem
Finally its OK to have an Australian scheme unless you want to get work there. That is very difficult, I like the fact I can live and work across the EU with minimal paper work.
sidicks said:
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!Is it this report that migrant watch did analysis of?
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/11/comment-...
http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/11/comment-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff