Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[Peer Gynt]

Who are these 'normal people' you keep mentioning?:

certainly not you.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 23:28 ----------

 

Originally Posted by Peer Gynt View Post

Keep posting and saying it as it really is.

 

Let's try that again-'posting things you want to hear'

 

No, posting things those in denial don't want to hear.

[Mecky]

I see the papers are countering this story this morning by saying the fact that the UK population will have risen by 10m by 2025 ...

[Cyclone]

Ask normal people who do normal jobs if they think that immigrants contribute to the country and you will get short shrift. And the days when people were prepared to believe their leftist "betters" over their own eyes ears and judgment are long gone.

 

Even if you were correct, this would just prove that the "normal people" you're asking have opinions without evidence. Hardly surprising.

 

I don't think this immigrant hating "normal person" exists though, except in your imagination.

[angos]

Even if you were correct, this would just prove that the "normal people" you're asking have opinions without evidence. Hardly surprising.

 

I don't think this immigrant hating "normal person" exists though, except in your imagination.

 

Thats come from your imagination because he didn't say anything immigrant hating people existing.

 

But my guess is that there will be plenty of normal people who hate immigrants, because hate is a normal human emotion.

[Zamo]

http://theconversation.com/revealed-immigrants-put-34-more-into-public-finances-than-they-take-out-19845

 

that is all.

 

I don't think anyone would dispute that. Although they are selective about the balance sheet. But that is only relevant to EU immigration. The opposite is true when considering none EU immigrants as the links earlier have shown.

 

I'd dispute it. It is stat twisting again.

 

Firstly, the headline infers an average 34% positive contribution for all immigrants but this stats is for one group. So, straight away, we know there is an agenda.

 

Secondly, it is a snapshot picture that does not tell the who story. When considering the benefits (or otherwise) of immigrantion we need to consider the long-term not the short term. The fact is that EEA immigrants are mainly young, single, healthy and work... in generally low paid jobs. At the moment they pay thier way but will those low paid jobs support a family in the future? Don't we foresee them tapping into NHS more as they get older? And don't we see them becoming pensioners when the money will be nearly all out of the system instead of in? And are our own 2.5 million unemployed so inept that they couldn't serve a pint, make a coffee or pick strawberries? Have they factored in the cost of paying the X-box generation to build up their thumb muscles instead of doing jobs that aren't beneath immigrants?

 

Thirdly, the comparison with indigenous performance is outrageously disingenuous that is borders on being a lie. According to the article, during the same period the indigenous made a net negative contribution and took out £624 billion more than it paid in. They have lumbered the indigenous with the national debt caused by overspending on things like the NHS, fighting wars, bailing out banks etc, etc, whilst letting the immigrant population off scot free!

 

Lastly, EEA immigration is being used to mask the serious problem with non-EEA immigration, which is not positive from a financial or a cultural perspective.

 

EEA migration may pan out if we can sift out the spongers from the workers - the cultural issues are certainly easier to overcome because the differences are not that pronounced. On the other hand there is non-EEA immigration, which is a mess and should effectively stop without a sponsor (as in Australia) and should be reviewed for serveral years to ensure appropriate levels of financial contribution and integration. It is currently too easy to get in and too difficult to get people back out... even if they are considered a threat to national security!

[Peer Gynt]

Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post

Even if you were correct, this would just prove that the "normal people" you're asking have opinions without evidence. Hardly surprising.

 

I don't think this immigrant hating "normal person" exists though, except in your imagination.

 

Thats come from your imagination because he didn't say anything immigrant hating people existing.

 

But my guess is that there will be plenty of normal people who hate immigrants, because hate is a normal human emotion.

 

Wow there'll be a bullying charge brought before long, 3 members disagreeing with Cyclone. He'll be enlisting the help of Tikka Bell his Indian Fairy next.

 

---------- Post added 07-11-2013 at 17:11 ----------

 

I'd dispute it. It is stat twisting again.

 

Firstly, the headline infers an average 34% positive contribution for all immigrants but this stats is for one group. So, straight away, we know there is an agenda.

 

Secondly, it is a snapshot picture that does not tell the who story. When considering the benefits (or otherwise) of immigrantion we need to consider the long-term not the short term. The fact is that EEA immigrants are mainly young, single, healthy and work... in generally low paid jobs. At the moment they pay thier way but will those low paid jobs support a family in the future? Don't we foresee them tapping into NHS more as they get older? And don't we see them becoming pensioners when the money will be nearly all out of the system instead of in? And are our own 2.5 million unemployed so inept that they couldn't serve a pint, make a coffee or pick strawberries? Have they factored in the cost of paying the X-box generation to build up their thumb muscles instead of doing jobs that aren't beneath immigrants?

 

Thirdly, the comparison with indigenous performance is outrageously disingenuous that is borders on being a lie. According to the article, during the same period the indigenous made a net negative contribution and took out £624 billion more than it paid in. They have lumbered the indigenous with the national debt caused by overspending on things like the NHS, fighting wars, bailing out banks etc, etc, whilst letting the immigrant population off scot free!

 

Lastly, EEA immigration is being used to mask the serious problem with non-EEA immigration, which is not positive from a financial or a cultural perspective.

 

EEA migration may pan out if we can sift out the spongers from the workers - the cultural issues are certainly easier to overcome because the differences are not that pronounced. On the other hand there is non-EEA immigration, which is a mess and should effectively stop without a sponsor (as in Australia) and should be reviewed for serveral years to ensure appropriate levels of financial contribution and integration. It is currently too easy to get in and too difficult to get people back out... even if they are considered a threat to national security!

let's see what those in denial have to say about this.:hihi:

[boyfriday]

let's see what those in denial have to say about this.:hihi:

 

Worry not PG, a lot of what Zamo says has some resonance, however he, you and others consistently choose to disregard or play down the benefits immigration has brought and continues to bring to this country.

 

That's not to say I think the doors to the UK should be swung open to all comers, far from it..but benefits are rarely derived from something without there being some negative consequences..I mean look at yourself, a man returned and posting under a fresh, new username-untainted by the history of your previous incarnation

[angos]

Worry not PG, a lot of what Zamo says has some resonance, however he, you and others consistently choose to disregard or play down the benefits immigration has brought and continues to bring to this country.

 

That's not to say I think the doors to the UK should be swung open to all comers, far from it..but benefits are rarely derived from something without there being some negative consequences..I mean look at yourself, a man returned and posting under a fresh, new username-untainted by the history of your previous incarnation

 

Every debate needs people of opposing views, there are plenty of members willing to support immigration, and without opponents there could be no debate, and it would make any sense for me to provide evidence which supports your stance, that's your job.

[boyfriday]

Every debate needs people of opposing views, there are plenty of members willing to support immigration, and without opponents there could be no debate, and it would make any sense for me to provide evidence which supports your stance, that's your job.

 

Dear angos, Im perfectly fine hearing the opposing views, it's why I come here and why I read the Daily Mail instead of The Guardian-it's no fun engaging with people you agree with

 

Those I can't abide are the ones who knock a debate stone dead with their whinging persecution complexes and 'I can't say what I want to say without being accused of being a racist'..set of poofs!

[Zamo]

Worry not PG, a lot of what Zamo says has some resonance, however he, you and others consistently choose to disregard or play down the benefits immigration has brought and continues to bring to this country.

 

That's not to say I think the doors to the UK should be swung open to all comers, far from it..but benefits are rarely derived from something without there being some negative consequences..I mean look at yourself, a man returned and posting under a fresh, new username-untainted by the history of your previous incarnation

 

I do not disregard or play down the positive benefits of immigration. I recognise them and welcome them.

 

What I repeatedly say is that immigration doesn't have to be an on or off thing and we need to get a lot smarter to reduce the negatives and increase the positives. Not only will it make us richer but it will help to counter the racism caused by bringing in a disproportionate amount of people from the poor end of the social scale.