Bloody immigrants, coming over here, paying their taxes

[sidicks]

TKF said:

It's funny how people find reports that confirm their bias and cling onto them for dear life. Not only are you trying to include students and retired people in your "unemployed" figure the the census figures disagree http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310454.pdf

The majority of Muslims are economically active (55%), a figure which is comparable to Christians (60%) and Jews (61%).

Of those not active 69% of Christians are retired whereas 61% of Muslims are either students or looking after home or family.

How do we benefit as a country from this massive drain on resources by the retired Christians?

1. This isn't about religion or race, it's about immigration

2. It's likely that the retired Christians were paying into the system for a considerable time while they were worked whereas that's not necessarily the case for immigrants.

[HonestIago]

TKF said:

How do we benefit as a country from this massive drain on resources by the retired Christians?

All those damn pensioners who have paid taxes and NI for a lifetime who mean? The majority of Muslims in Britain have arrived since 1997. Do you not see a difference between supporting economically inactive immigrants and those who have lived all their lives here?

[TKF]

sidicks said:

TKF said:

It's funny how people find reports that confirm their bias and cling onto them for dear life. Not only are you trying to include students and retired people in your "unemployed" figure the the census figures disagree http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310454.pdf

The majority of Muslims are economically active (55%), a figure which is comparable to Christians (60%) and Jews (61%).

Of those not active 69% of Christians are retired whereas 61% of Muslims are either students or looking after home or family.

How do we benefit as a country from this massive drain on resources by the retired Christians?

1. This isn't about religion or race, it's about immigration

2. It's likely that the retired Christians were paying into the system for a considerable time while they were worked whereas that's not necessarily the case for immigrants.

I was replying directly to the poster who brought up the lie about Muslims.

[TKF]

HonestIago said:

I suppose you think I'm racist as well for questioning why Muslims don't seem to have much of an affinity for employment.

As long as you pose the same question for Christians and Jews then there is no problem.

[sidicks]

TKF said:

I was replying directly to the poster who brought up the lie about Muslims.

I appreciate that!

[anonymous-user]

TKF said:

sidicks said:

TKF said:

It's funny how people find reports that confirm their bias and cling onto them for dear life. Not only are you trying to include students and retired people in your "unemployed" figure the the census figures disagree http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310454.pdf

The majority of Muslims are economically active (55%), a figure which is comparable to Christians (60%) and Jews (61%).

Of those not active 69% of Christians are retired whereas 61% of Muslims are either students or looking after home or family.

How do we benefit as a country from this massive drain on resources by the retired Christians?

1. This isn't about religion or race, it's about immigration

2. It's likely that the retired Christians were paying into the system for a considerable time while they were worked whereas that's not necessarily the case for immigrants.

I was replying directly to the poster who brought up the lie about Muslims.

It's a forum, others will answer your question. FWIW, I'm a pensioner for some 5 years or so, though I have yet to receive a state pension. I am no 'drain on resources', still making a considerable contribution in IT and other taxes. I am acquainted with many other pensioners who are in the same boat.

Given, as has been said, that the majority of those receiving even a state pension have more than paid for it during their working lives, and many more still make a significant contribution to state funding, I think your question is answered.

Now you can perhaps give a similar explanation for the Muslim population?

[sidicks]

REALIST123 said:

It's a forum, others will answer your question. FWIW, I'm a pensioner for some 5 years or so, though I have yet to receive a state pension. I am no 'drain on resources', still making a considerable contribution in IT and other taxes. I am acquainted with many other pensioners who are in the same boat.

Given, as has been said, that the majority of those receiving even a state pension have more than paid for it during their working lives, and many more still make a significant contribution to state funding, I think your question is answered.

Now you can perhaps give a similar explanation for the Muslim population?

That's simply not true. The majority are subsidied by the minority.

[TKF]

REALIST123 said:

TKF said:

sidicks said:

TKF said:

It's funny how people find reports that confirm their bias and cling onto them for dear life. Not only are you trying to include students and retired people in your "unemployed" figure the the census figures disagree http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310454.pdf

The majority of Muslims are economically active (55%), a figure which is comparable to Christians (60%) and Jews (61%).

Of those not active 69% of Christians are retired whereas 61% of Muslims are either students or looking after home or family.

How do we benefit as a country from this massive drain on resources by the retired Christians?

1. This isn't about religion or race, it's about immigration

2. It's likely that the retired Christians were paying into the system for a considerable time while they were worked whereas that's not necessarily the case for immigrants.

I was replying directly to the poster who brought up the lie about Muslims.

It's a forum, others will answer your question. FWIW, I'm a pensioner for some 5 years or so, though I have yet to receive a state pension. I am no 'drain on resources', still making a considerable contribution in IT and other taxes. I am acquainted with many other pensioners who are in the same boat.

Given, as has been said, that the majority of those receiving even a state pension have more than paid for it during their working lives, and many more still make a significant contribution to state funding, I think your question is answered.

Now you can perhaps give a similar explanation for the Muslim population?

My question was clearly a factitious one in response to Iago's banal and incorrect post.

However to answer your question I can only go on the published figures such as the report in the OP which shows immigrants put more in than they take out compared to the indigenous population.

report said:

EEA immigrants had made a fiscal contribution of £4.4bn between 1995 and 2011, non-EEA immigrants had made a negative net contribution of £118bn, and British people had made a negative net contribution of £591bn
More recently, between 2001 and 2011, European arrivals contributed £20bn and those from outside Europe £5bn
Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than British people to receive state benefits or tax credits, and 7% less likely to live in social housing
They were better educated, with 62% of those from the first 15 EU countries and 25% from the A10 countries having a degree, compared with 24% in the UK

Depending on your agenda you believe these numbers or will rubbish them.

[Mr_B]

Mrr T said:

I have followed this thread and posted on it several times and I have seen NO evidence the report is incorrect.

Some have suggested that the author previous EU funding must influenced the conclusion.

That and lots of I know its true because 5,000,000 immigrants from E Europe are living next door to me and drawing £1billion in benefits.

So some real evidence please that giving up our right to live and work in Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc is worth giving up.

The point about the report and it not getting universal praise or converted everyone to suddenly having no concerns, was because it cited massive costs and losses in various groups of immigrants and a small net gain for another group based on the short term.
Various other reports have indicated that long term that won't last and those hundreds of thousands who do all the jobs 'lazy Brits won't do' are going to become a huge cost as they get older and if they settle here. Taking the short term view and looking at a group of young people coming to work and providing a small net gain, is hardly total proof or the end of the debate , is it ?

I asked you earlier to speculate on the difference between those that have left the UK and those that have come here. I'd suggest we have got hundreds of thousands ,if not into the a million, of people who work very basic unskilled and not very high paying jobs. I don't know anyone that's left the UK to work in the EU that is skilled in some way or would likely get in if they had border controls. I'm not so sure there is half a million Brits cleaning offices in Romania or Berlin, but guess a lot have left and are a huge loss to the UK because they are skilled in some way and had all the tax payer money spent on them.
If you have any skills to bring , you would likely get in. If you don't then no, you may not.

[sidicks]

Mr_B said:

The point about the report and it not getting universal praise or converted everyone to suddenly having no concerns, was because it cited massive costs and losses in various groups of immigrants and a small net gain for another group based on the short term.
Various other reports have indicated that long term that won't last and those hundreds of thousands who do all the jobs 'lazy Brits won't do' are going to become a huge cost as they get older and if they settle here. Taking the short term view and looking at a group of young people coming to work and providing a small net gain, is hardly total proof or the end of the debate , is it ?

Good summary, thanks.

[Mrr T]

Guam said:

As for oversees EU retirees the UK government transfers funds to the resident country, as I understand it, as long as they are UK citizens (which of course they have in turn paid for).

My post was only in reference to UK retiree living in other EU countries.

Your comment about health care costs being recharged to the UK are correct in theory. However, most EU insurance systems, including the NHS are not set up to manage the system.

This is a big issue in Spain where its often easier for a Doctor to accept you based on your residency certificate. If they register you based on an S1 then they get paid much later. As a result there is a feeling in Spain that they subsidise UK pensioners.

[Mrr T]

Mr_B said:

I asked you earlier to speculate on the difference between those that have left the UK and those that have come here. I'd suggest we have got hundreds of thousands ,if not into the a million, of people who work very basic unskilled and not very high paying jobs. I don't know anyone that's left the UK to work in the EU that is skilled in some way or would likely get in if they had border controls. I'm not so sure there is half a million Brits cleaning offices in Romania or Berlin, but guess a lot have left and are a huge loss to the UK because they are skilled in some way and had all the tax payer money spent on them.
If you have any skills to bring , you would likely get in. If you don't then no, you may not.

I am happy to speculate but its only speculation.

I assume we are only discussing immigration for the EU at the moment.

My guess is that there is very little difference between educational demographic of immigrants and migrants.

The only difference I would guess would be in age, particularly from A8 countries, where I would expect immigrants would be younger than the average.

As for you guess that hundreds of thousands if not a million unskilled immigrants from the EU is frankly ridiculous.

The EU total figure for EU immigrants is only about 2.4M so you are suggesting over half are unskilled.

That figure is heavily distorted because the UK was the only country not to impose rules on working after the 2004 enlargement.

My own experience from an A6 countries is more than have have degrees, and real degrees not Posh and Beck studies, and 95% will have passed high school.

[JagLover]

TKF said:

It's funny how people find reports that confirm their bias and cling onto them for dear life. Not only are you trying to include students and retired people in your "unemployed" figure the the census figures disagree http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310454.pdf

The majority of Muslims are economically active (55%), a figure which is comparable to Christians (60%) and Jews (61%).

Of those not active 69% of Christians are retired whereas 61% of Muslims are either students or looking after home or family.

How do we benefit as a country from this massive drain on resources by the retired Christians?

So a population with far more adults of working age than the indigenous population has a considerably lower rate economically active and this is OK because they are looking after "home and family". You are aware I take it that welfare bills are unaffected by whether someone is seeking work or not?

Significant segments of the Muslim population are a classic example of the futility of importing low cost labour on economic grounds. Many came over to work in a cotton industry in terminal decline a situation unchanged by the arrival of low cost labour from abroad. The demise of the cotton industry left many northern mill towns with significant numbers imported for the industry and ill equipped for other work in a modern economy.

[Mrr T]

JagLover said:

Significant segments of the Muslim population are a classic example of the futility of importing low cost labour on economic grounds. Many came over to work in a cotton industry in terminal decline a situation unchanged by the arrival of low cost labour from abroad. The demise of the cotton industry left many northern mill towns with significant numbers imported for the industry and ill equipped for other work in a modern economy.

I would disagree.

I would suggest significant parts of the muslin immigrant population are the result of various decisions by the ECHR which severely restricts our ability to control immigrate and remove asylum seekers.

[crankedup]

NicD said:

crankedup said:

This will be the same 'smart people' that have been controlling immigration during the past thirty years I suppose! Its all talk about 'we only want the cream to come in' nothing except our exit from the E.U. can effectively control what is now seen by many as a problem.

clearly you have not been reading my many posts.

so No and Yes to your statements.

Another interpretation of my first statement and one that is far more likely to be accurate 'I have lost all faith and confidence within the political establishments to seriously consider any statements regarding the control of immigration to be honest or likely to be successfully enacted.

[Mr_B]

Mrr T said:

Mr_B said:

I asked you earlier to speculate on the difference between those that have left the UK and those that have come here. I'd suggest we have got hundreds of thousands ,if not into the a million, of people who work very basic unskilled and not very high paying jobs. I don't know anyone that's left the UK to work in the EU that is skilled in some way or would likely get in if they had border controls. I'm not so sure there is half a million Brits cleaning offices in Romania or Berlin, but guess a lot have left and are a huge loss to the UK because they are skilled in some way and had all the tax payer money spent on them.
If you have any skills to bring , you would likely get in. If you don't then no, you may not.

I am happy to speculate but its only speculation.

I assume we are only discussing immigration for the EU at the moment.

My guess is that there is very little difference between educational demographic of immigrants and migrants.

The only difference I would guess would be in age, particularly from A8 countries, where I would expect immigrants would be younger than the average.

As for you guess that hundreds of thousands if not a million unskilled immigrants from the EU is frankly ridiculous.

The EU total figure for EU immigrants is only about 2.4M so you are suggesting over half are unskilled.

That figure is heavily distorted because the UK was the only country not to impose rules on working after the 2004 enlargement.

My own experience from an A6 countries is more than have have degrees, and real degrees not Posh and Beck studies, and 95% will have passed high school.

Unskilled migrants isn't just limited to the EU open borders, there's plenty who came from elsewhere that came and while young may provide a small net gain for the economy, but who won't long term.
Given in another context of the debate, the pro immigration voice is happy to tell me all the veg would be rotting in the fields and all the offices and other low skilled low wouldn't get done if it weren't for immigrants, then yes, I'm pretty sure the figure across the country runs into hundreds of thousands working these types of jobs or not much better or higher paying jobs like serving coffee. They may have a degree, but that doesn't automatically translate into a skilled well paying job.

As I said earlier, my job takes me into hundreds of London offices a year. The change has been near total over the years to an almost exclusive migrant workforce doing the cleaning jobs. I'm not sure if you believe immigration to be roughly equal, but would guess that the number of people that left the UK to go to Romania to work zero skills jobs could probably be counted on one hand. That I'm afraid is the disparity people don't seem to want to talk on when the very recent transition controls were relaxed with very poor and vastly economically different countries like Romania. It was always going to be a near one way street in terms of who would leave and go, with Romania providing perhaps the most stark contrast - broadly speaking, very poor unskilled people would come, only the more skilled from the UK would leave to go there, both representing a loss to the UK.

Had the EU remained for economically similar countries having the free movement option, you would have seen fewer people, fewer problems, more skilled people and a much greater economic benefit both in the short term and the long term.

[longblackcoat]

Mr_B said:

Mrr T said:

Mr_B said:

I asked you earlier to speculate on the difference between those that have left the UK and those that have come here. I'd suggest we have got hundreds of thousands ,if not into the a million, of people who work very basic unskilled and not very high paying jobs. I don't know anyone that's left the UK to work in the EU that is skilled in some way or would likely get in if they had border controls. I'm not so sure there is half a million Brits cleaning offices in Romania or Berlin, but guess a lot have left and are a huge loss to the UK because they are skilled in some way and had all the tax payer money spent on them.
If you have any skills to bring , you would likely get in. If you don't then no, you may not.

I am happy to speculate but its only speculation.

I assume we are only discussing immigration for the EU at the moment.

My guess is that there is very little difference between educational demographic of immigrants and migrants.

The only difference I would guess would be in age, particularly from A8 countries, where I would expect immigrants would be younger than the average.

As for you guess that hundreds of thousands if not a million unskilled immigrants from the EU is frankly ridiculous.

The EU total figure for EU immigrants is only about 2.4M so you are suggesting over half are unskilled.

That figure is heavily distorted because the UK was the only country not to impose rules on working after the 2004 enlargement.

My own experience from an A6 countries is more than have have degrees, and real degrees not Posh and Beck studies, and 95% will have passed high school.

Unskilled migrants isn't just limited to the EU open borders, there's plenty who came from elsewhere that came and while young may provide a small net gain for the economy, but who won't long term.
Given in another context of the debate, the pro immigration voice is happy to tell me all the veg would be rotting in the fields and all the offices and other low skilled low wouldn't get done if it weren't for immigrants, then yes, I'm pretty sure the figure across the country runs into hundreds of thousands working these types of jobs or not much better or higher paying jobs like serving coffee. They may have a degree, but that doesn't automatically translate into a skilled well paying job.

As I said earlier, my job takes me into hundreds of London offices a year. The change has been near total over the years to an almost exclusive migrant workforce doing the cleaning jobs. I'm not sure if you believe immigration to be roughly equal, but would guess that the number of people that left the UK to go to Romania to work zero skills jobs could probably be counted on one hand. That I'm afraid is the disparity people don't seem to want to talk on when the very recent transition controls were relaxed with very poor and vastly economically different countries like Romania. It was always going to be a near one way street in terms of who would leave and go, with Romania providing perhaps the most stark contrast - broadly speaking, very poor unskilled people would come, only the more skilled from the UK would leave to go there, both representing a loss to the UK.

Had the EU remained for economically similar countries having the free movement option, you would have seen fewer people, fewer problems, more skilled people and a much greater economic benefit both in the short term and the long term.

Looking around my office, there's a Croatian, a Pole, a Macedonian, two French guys and any number of Irish. All with degrees, many with masters, all with professional qualifications.

We've been able to get better-quality people as a result of the economic issues in Europe - a truly outstanding Greek analyst comes to mind - but the problem for me is retention. Most of these people are keen to return home eventually; paradoxically, although it gives me a problem, it's been good for GB plc, as they've come in, earned well, paid taxes, and then depart before they start to draw a pension. In any case, we've been able to get the advantage of a fully-educated worker without the expense of all that up-to-the-age-of-21 cost.

We all have different examples, depending on where we work. My personal experience is that the immigrant is often better than the home-grown; they've been bothered to get off their backside and travel hundreds/thousands of miles, there's a fantastic work ethic, and the standard of grammar is uniformly excellent.

Immigrants? Love 'em, just wish I could keep 'em.

[sidicks]

longblackcoat said:

Looking around my office, there's a Croatian, a Pole, a Macedonian, two French guys and any number of Irish. All with degrees, many with masters, all with professional qualifications.

We've been able to get better-quality people as a result of the economic issues in Europe - a truly outstanding Greek analyst comes to mind - but the problem for me is retention. Most of these people are keen to return home eventually; paradoxically, although it gives me a problem, it's been good for GB plc, as they've come in, earned well, paid taxes, and then depart before they start to draw a pension. In any case, we've been able to get the advantage of a fully-educated worker without the expense of all that up-to-the-age-of-21 cost.

We all have different examples, depending on where we work. My personal experience is that the immigrant is often better than the home-grown; they've been bothered to get off their backside and travel hundreds/thousands of miles, there's a fantastic work ethic, and the standard of grammar is uniformly excellent.

Immigrants? Love 'em, just wish I could keep 'em.

And those same people would still be able to come and work in the UK under a controlled immigration policy....

[Mr_B]

longblackcoat said:

Mr_B said:

Mrr T said:

Mr_B said:

I asked you earlier to speculate on the difference between those that have left the UK and those that have come here. I'd suggest we have got hundreds of thousands ,if not into the a million, of people who work very basic unskilled and not very high paying jobs. I don't know anyone that's left the UK to work in the EU that is skilled in some way or would likely get in if they had border controls. I'm not so sure there is half a million Brits cleaning offices in Romania or Berlin, but guess a lot have left and are a huge loss to the UK because they are skilled in some way and had all the tax payer money spent on them.
If you have any skills to bring , you would likely get in. If you don't then no, you may not.

I am happy to speculate but its only speculation.

I assume we are only discussing immigration for the EU at the moment.

My guess is that there is very little difference between educational demographic of immigrants and migrants.

The only difference I would guess would be in age, particularly from A8 countries, where I would expect immigrants would be younger than the average.

As for you guess that hundreds of thousands if not a million unskilled immigrants from the EU is frankly ridiculous.

The EU total figure for EU immigrants is only about 2.4M so you are suggesting over half are unskilled.

That figure is heavily distorted because the UK was the only country not to impose rules on working after the 2004 enlargement.

My own experience from an A6 countries is more than have have degrees, and real degrees not Posh and Beck studies, and 95% will have passed high school.

Unskilled migrants isn't just limited to the EU open borders, there's plenty who came from elsewhere that came and while young may provide a small net gain for the economy, but who won't long term.
Given in another context of the debate, the pro immigration voice is happy to tell me all the veg would be rotting in the fields and all the offices and other low skilled low wouldn't get done if it weren't for immigrants, then yes, I'm pretty sure the figure across the country runs into hundreds of thousands working these types of jobs or not much better or higher paying jobs like serving coffee. They may have a degree, but that doesn't automatically translate into a skilled well paying job.

As I said earlier, my job takes me into hundreds of London offices a year. The change has been near total over the years to an almost exclusive migrant workforce doing the cleaning jobs. I'm not sure if you believe immigration to be roughly equal, but would guess that the number of people that left the UK to go to Romania to work zero skills jobs could probably be counted on one hand. That I'm afraid is the disparity people don't seem to want to talk on when the very recent transition controls were relaxed with very poor and vastly economically different countries like Romania. It was always going to be a near one way street in terms of who would leave and go, with Romania providing perhaps the most stark contrast - broadly speaking, very poor unskilled people would come, only the more skilled from the UK would leave to go there, both representing a loss to the UK.

Had the EU remained for economically similar countries having the free movement option, you would have seen fewer people, fewer problems, more skilled people and a much greater economic benefit both in the short term and the long term.

Looking around my office, there's a Croatian, a Pole, a Macedonian, two French guys and any number of Irish. All with degrees, many with masters, all with professional qualifications.

We've been able to get better-quality people as a result of the economic issues in Europe - a truly outstanding Greek analyst comes to mind - but the problem for me is retention. Most of these people are keen to return home eventually; paradoxically, although it gives me a problem, it's been good for GB plc, as they've come in, earned well, paid taxes, and then depart before they start to draw a pension. In any case, we've been able to get the advantage of a fully-educated worker without the expense of all that up-to-the-age-of-21 cost.

We all have different examples, depending on where we work. My personal experience is that the immigrant is often better than the home-grown; they've been bothered to get off their backside and travel hundreds/thousands of miles, there's a fantastic work ethic, and the standard of grammar is uniformly excellent.

Immigrants? Love 'em, just wish I could keep 'em.

As someone else said, all people likely to be able to get in and work under a points based system. You are also unable to speak long term and just citing the people in your office is hardly a way to run the immigration system now, is it ?
Talk to me on numbers and long term and I may listen. For example , tell me a sustainable immigration figure and lets see if that would be filled quite easily many times over with unskilled people who won't be providing any benefit to GB plc.
I don't disagree with much of what you said or dispute your experience, but don't see it adds much, other than supporting a points based system ?

[BGARK]

longblackcoat said:

Looking around my office, there's a Croatian, a Pole, a Macedonian, two French guys and any number of Irish. All with degrees, many with masters, all with professional qualifications.

Do they mostly prefer coffee or tea?