election 2015

[motherhubbard]

DVB - your £20 billion isn't going to go very far.

European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services – according to new research by the UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).
European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received.

These are the central findings of new analysis by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the fiscal consequences of European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

Professor Christian Dustmann

The research provides an in-depth analysis of the net fiscal contribution of UK immigrants, drawing a distinction between immigrants from the 10 Central and East European EU member states that joined since 2004 (the A10), other European Economic Area (EEA) immigrants and non-EEA immigrants. Its main findings are:
The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.
Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They were also 7% less likely to live in social housing.
European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are on average better educated than natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable share is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011).
The value of the education of immigrants in the UK labour market who arrived since 2000 and that has been paid for in the immigrants’ origin countries amounts to £6.8bn over the period between 2000 and 2011. By contributing to ‘pure’ public goods (such as defence or basic research), immigrants arriving since 2000 have saved the UK taxpayer an additional £8.5bn over the same period.
Considering all immigrants who were living in the UK over the years between 1995 and 2011, a period over which the net fiscal contribution of natives was negative (and accumulated to about £591bn), EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), while non-EEA immigrants’ contributions were almost 9% lower.
Over the same period from 1995 to 2011, immigrants who lived in the UK endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would have cost about £49bn if it were produced through the UK education system, and contributed about £82bn to fixed or ‘pure’ public goods.

Professor Christian Dustmann, Director of CReAM and co-author of the study, said:

“A key concern in the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems. Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU.

“Responding to comments on our earlier report on this topic published last year, we performed extensive sensitivity analysis, which does not alter our main conclusions: immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

“When we additionally consider that immigrants bring their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and that they contribute to financing fixed public services such as defence, these contributions are even larger.

“European immigrants, particularly, both from the new accession countries and the rest of the European Union, make the most substantial contributions. This is mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits.”
- See more at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-article ... J0Av3.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[motherhubbard]

Do you honestly believe leaving the EU would negate the need for food banks in this country?
is the problem not one of wealth redistribution?
Do you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne and Farage are the ones to trust with wealth redistribution?

Sorry - IF I’M GETTING LIVELY IT’S BECAUSE I FEEL BLOODY LIVELY!”

[dvbuk55]

Do you honestly believe leaving the EU would negate the need for food banks in this country?
is the problem not one of wealth redistribution?
Do you honestly believe Cameron and Osborne and Farage are the ones to trust with wealth redistribution?

Sorry - IF I’M GETTING LIVELY IT’S BECAUSE I FEEL BLOODY LIVELY!”

Well simple arithmetic here mother between 2001 and 2011 these immigrants have contributed more than 20 billion over the 10 year period whereas the UK has contributed £200 Billion over that same period. Wealth distribution is a good idea, stop giving it to the EU and give it to worthwhile causes in this country. I lived in this country before the EU and I hope to die in a UK that is no longer part of that disgraceful organisation.

[chrisj]

Are we really supposed to believe these so-called very biased think-tank and professors of these and that?

Some of these people carried out a study that said, only about 49,000 people will come from the New Eastern European countries on a year by year basis and they also said, they will be mostly young people who will later return to their own countries to make things better over there. And what happened. Millions in the first two years - and I think the government totally lost count after a while. And still no apologies from the likes of Tony Blair and other Blairites, we know the Lib Dems will not have it all - immigration is all good; nothing wrong at all. At least, Jack Straw conceded a bit and lambasted the people that carried out the research.

What the figures does not totally quantity is the effect on the people of the country that have found their wages depressed, hospitals and schools more crowded, less housing stock, social services at busting point and then being unfavourably compared to the migrants.

Migrants (economic) from poorer countries will always work hard in the first few years that they arrive - and they have ways of doing things that the locals cannot really get away with; ranging from not paying all manner of taxes, living in crowded accommodation, no respect for health and safety, under-cutting wages deliberately (not only through unscrupulous employers) and so on and so forth; including getting loads of helps from back home and still able to claim benefits. How can you tell the net worth of someone who has come from another country - he might have a house over there and loads of savings or whatever...

The worst part of the UK story is that Tony Blair government did not put any sort of restrictions when the newer countries joined. The other bigger and equally prosperous nations did not simply allow people to come in without jobs; and certainly did not let them start claiming benefits with minimal of efforts... What that created was a swarming and alarming effects on the locals - and that included monetary costs, cultural shocks/costs, back on housing lists, rise in rents and loss of identify and nationhood amongst the locals. All these things will not show up on the figures produced by the professors of nothing whatsoever...

Now, most of the parties (and some in Europe) are now talking about limiting benefits for people that have just arrived - a bit late. Even so, the Lib Dems and some Labour people and the think-tanks will still want us to believe that the actual cost in benefits is not that much (as an example, why send benefits for kids living abroad in the first place). Nick Clegg will have us believe that it is all quid quo pro, they live here and we live over there and son.

A complete joke, most Brits that live abroad go there with their own money - they definitely contribute more than they take out. I read in the Guardian once that only one Brit is claiming benefit in Poland (or one of those new EC countries) and they could not even find him... When Brits go to the Social Services over there, the people in charge really get confused; because it is so rare and they do not know what to do. Some even laugh and say that the Benefits are not worth it for the Brits - that they should not bother; you really have to be down on all your luck to go and claim Benefit in Bulgaria and Romania.

All in all, it is not about the nominals in terms of Cost and Benefit analysis of economic migration. Mass Migration is a big issue for some and it will need to be addressed or we have not see the end of UKIP or even BNP... If David Cameron had not promised a referendum on Europe, then there will have been even more votes for UKIP and possibly more seats. And if the voters had not voted tactically to keep Labour/SNP out then UKIP will also have got more votes.

Being against Mass Migration is not the same as being against immigration or foreigners. A point based system like the Australians will do for starters (and that should involve everybody). However, the points requirements might be a bit lower for members of EU than the rest of the world. In that way, people can come as much as they like as long as they have a job to come to, they will not be able to claim or get social housing until they have put something into the system. And people from EU can still come on a visit or holiday without a visa and those with money can come and spend it or start a business. What is wrong with that?

[chrisj]

Nothing wrong about being passionate about what you believe... I would rather have the sort of passion from Charlotte Church rather than Mylene Klass - cry baby who threw a tantrum about Mansion tax; as if that will cripple her financially.

Unfortunately, from the result of the last election, the nation elected a party that is more concerned about wealth creation and squeezing the less well-off than wealth redistribution. That is what we have to deal with for the next 5 years...

I liked Ed Miliband and liked his idea of taking on the powerful and wanting the people with deeper pockets to shoulder more of the financial burden created mainly by those at the top. The people rejected him and his idea - and that's it. We can protest a little but we just have to get on with it and be more compassionate to each (in words of Russell Grant).

The Referendum is going to be a big big one - it will only fail if the EU starts to reform and start to concede to the UK, asap. As we speak, the UK has been given an option to opt out of taking an allocated share of the migrants landing in boats from Africa and war torn Middle East; the Tories will get their ways.

[chrisj]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... g-benefits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... enefits-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have provided the two articles above to give some sort of balance even though I do not entirely believe the figures; however, it shows that country with the same economic status can easily balance the books when it comes to mutual migrations. I also do not think it is simply about money contributed by migrants versus how much money they put - that is too simplistic and that is why our politicians don't get it!

This also shows that I am a Guardian reader but I also read the Daily Mail for some balance, for a laugh and the celeb gossips...

[fishtank]

The arguments for and against immigration or the free movement of Labour are pointless, in a fully globalised economic world you won't, can't and probably according to most economists shouldn't stop it so you can close your blinds, tut away, in some cases deny your closet racism, vote UKIP, leave the EU, plant an Engerland flag on your lawn and it won't make a damn bit of difference other than make the country that little bit more insular, sad and pathetic.

Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.. well as long as the French aren't using the aircraft carrier at the time...

[dvbuk55]

Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves.. Britons never never never shall be slaves...

Well not strictly true when you are bound to the EU

The EU needs the UK for some sort of stability, we do not need the EU - there are a number of nations on the brink of leaving because they have borrowed too much to be able to sustain the repayments let alone the capital sums. A debt which the remaining nations will have to suck up including the UK, where the citizens have been and will still be under austerity which other nations refuse to implement and will undoubtedly be lent/given even more money simply to prop up the Euro - refusing to join the monetary system being one of the successes of past government.

[chrisj]

That is a surprising comment from fishtank... Is he saying all immigration is good? Or that there should be no more separate nations; all borders should be open, all should be welcome regardless of if there is job or anywhere for them to live?

Some people and some of our politicians will not listen 'carefully' to what is being said. It is not Immigration that is the problem but unfettered immigration or too-much-too-soon mass immigration that can be alarming and destructive to countries that are taking the immigrants and to the countries the immigrants come from.

I am all for people moving around to better themselves; I can even turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants because most illegals will probably work hard and not even claim benefits; or I just side with them because Brits have done the same thing over the years and over centuries - they have gone to countries that have not always invited them. At the same time, if an illegal is caught and sent back then I will have few sympathies...

The illegals are not even the problems (proper border control can limit that), the highly qualified from EU and different parts of the world are not a problem. Immigration in itself is not a problem. Nobody is complaining about the head of RM being a member of the Commonwealth even though it is hard to see why we could not find a Brit to do the same job - but we have UK CEO in other countries...

[fishtank]

What I'm saying is the idea of good or bad is irrelevant, it'll happen anyway. The idea that you can lock your borders is laughable, all you'll do is turn legal immigrants into illegal immigrants and create an expensive mess for the police, demonize genuine hard working people and create a huge underground low paid workforce.

It's market forces that bring migrant workers here, not benefits or a free nhs and those market forces will still be there either way.

[chrisj]

Disagree!

That it will happen anyway; how is that? It will happen anyway for just how many people and from which countries?

And it is not just about benefits and money... This is why this discussion gets polarised! I give up!

[jetblack]

1 in 4 of the electorate voted Conservative - they predominantly live in rural and semi rural England. Between them they own 70% of all the wealth in the UK.

They are voting to maintain their privileged positions - and in doing so, almost by default, they are also voting to keep the likes of you and I living in crime ridden shitholes and enslaved by debt.
The media (in whose ranks they are disproportionately represented) back them to the hilt.


This country is not democratic.

[borders]

well its nice to see 3 people talking sense while I have been away!!

[fishtank]

Disagree!

That it will happen anyway; how is that? It will happen anyway for just how many people and from which countries?

And it is not just about benefits and money... This is why this discussion gets polarised! I give up!

The best model is the USA, there are no free benefits or a free NHS there, for 50 years they have been trying to lock their borders and limit immigration, even to the point of building a huge ridiculous fence and the cost to the US tax payer to police this has been massive...and still they come in ever increasing numbers....

[fishtank]

Disagree!

That it will happen anyway; how is that? It will happen anyway for just how many people and from which countries?

And it is not just about benefits and money... This is why this discussion gets polarised! I give up!

The best model is the USA, there are no free benefits or a free NHS there, for 50 years they have been trying to lock their borders and limit immigration, even to the point of building a huge ridiculous fence and the cost to the US tax payer to police this has been massive...and still they come in ever increasing numbers....