Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[Titanic99]

Out of interest do we think Spain should send this lot home?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/09/travelnews.spain

 

So what do we want, young fit people who work and pay in to the exchequer or people of an older generation who are more likely to take out?

[chalga]

Yawn.

 

Yes, everyone who makes a contribution through tax pays for all the expenditures I listed... including immigrants. What I said was that UCL (and others) exclude those costs when calculating 'positive contribution' for immigrants. They find dodgy justifications for removing liabilities and massively reducing the level at which contribution becomes positive. It is a cheat.

 

I didn't say anything about immigrants not paying their fair share or what they are legally bound to pay. My point about 'fair share' is that it isn't the same a 'share', which should be used to calculate whether contribution is positive or negative. 'Fair share' is achieved by making adjustments to what tax people pay based on their income and circumstances (it has nothing to do with what that take from the state in direct benefits or services). Someone can be paying their fair share but doing so doesn't make it a positive contribution unless it is more than their equal 'share' of the burden that is State expenditure.

 

No they didn't...........I posted where the UCL calculations on what you said were missing,were not missing..........they were there,and I quoted or told you exactly where they were.

Nobody said anything about positive or negative contributions until you did now...........you said that immigrants were not paying the 'share' that they should be towards defence,when they actually are paying what they and everybody else are legally bound to pay the government through the tax system............or are you saying that they should be paying extra tax than every other person for the same defence that every other person and the immigrant are getting?..........why would that be fair?.............If you are talking about fair share,are you going to level the same accusations at Brits who are not paying their fair share?............should they have more snatched out of their wages to pay for their 'defence' before they start spending them on putting food on the table?............if there is anything left to buy themselves food with after they have paid your view of a fair share on their defence.

Edited November 11, 2015 by chalga

[gomgeg]

Out of interest do we think Spain should send this lot home?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/09/travelnews.spain

 

So what do we want, young fit people who work and pay in to the exchequer or people of an older generation who are more likely to take out?

So ,what do you think?

Do they pay for interpreters at health centres and police stations?

Do they have kids at school over there?

Do they claim benefits?

Does the UK government pay£175 a month to Spain for each ones health care?

And how many of the above apply to immigrants here?

[WiseOwl182]

Out of interest do we think Spain should send this lot home?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/09/travelnews.spain

 

So what do we want, young fit people who work and pay in to the exchequer or people of an older generation who are more likely to take out?

 

How other countries run and fund their services is not my concern. Very few countries offer as generous benefits or free healthcare like we do though. I'm more concerned about how my taxes are being spent in my country.

[ez8004]

Probably held back whilst educating migrants.

 

Don't think so, otherwise these so called non white children wouldn't be academically better achievers. The more accurate description is that white English children can't keep up. Also, white English families do not place anywhere near as much emphasis on their children's education as the ethnic minorities like the Chinese and the Indians.

 

That's true. My partners daughter (12yrs old), complained to her mum because in class she was asked to mentor another classmate who could hardly speak English. She couldn't get her own work done.

 

Blaming others for your daughter's academic failure is pathetic. She doesn't need to tutor them at home and do their exams for them. Your daughter should probably have studied harder at home if she was having problems.

 

It is not a coincidence that children in the Far East like China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore etc are such high achievers as shown year after year in the PISA tests. These kids spend have a full days schooling and then spend an extra four to five hours at home on more study. Kids in the UK just spend that amount of time on a games console instead. The more effort you put in, the more you get out of it.

 

---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 20:35 ----------

 

How other countries run and fund their services is not my concern. Very few countries offer as generous benefits or free healthcare like we do though. I'm more concerned about how my taxes are being spent in my country.

 

Which is why the Tory cuts on tax credits is needed. People complain about the cuts and then complain that the benefits are too generous. Which is it?

[WiseOwl182]

 

Which is why the Tory cuts on tax credits is needed. People complain about the cuts and then complain that the benefits are too generous. Which is it?

 

 

The latter. I've never once complained about the cuts.

[phantom309]

The illegal immigrants in Calais are making a contribution they have cut a drivers air lines to his brakes and smashed another drivers windscreen with rocks and are trying to intimidate them with knives and iron bars and we have charities donating to them only for them to attack people going about their daily work and attempting to earn a living.

[Zamo]

No they didn't...........I posted where the UCL calculations on what you said were missing,were not missing..........they were there,and I quoted or told you exactly where they were.

 

You quote but don't understand the report.

 

Yes, the report talks about two different scenarios for calculating the costs attributed to migrants. You quoted the one where they simple average out the cost between native and immigrant but didn't mention the other one where they apply their 'cheat', or, as they call it the 'marginal cost'. This is how they explain marginal cost...

 

‘Pure’ public goods and services are not rival in consumption and the marginal cost of

providing them to immigrants is likely to be zero.

 

What they are saying is that expenditure on things like defence are largely independent of the size of the UK and as such the population increased resulting from immigration has had no impact on the budge. Therefore the cost attributed to immigrants is considered to be zero.

 

When they use the average cost scenario (that you quoted) they find a negative financial contribution for immigrants. When they use the marginal cost scenario it returns a positive result. Therefore you have complete misrepresented the results by quoting the average cost scenario as the method used to show a positive contribution... completely untrue.

 

Their 'marginal scenarios' are nothing more than cheats. As an example, everyone resident in the UK benefits indirectly from the security our expenditure on defence provides. It is one of the reasons we live in peace and prosperity and the £44.9 billion bill is one that everyone living in this country has a shared liability for.... except immigrants according to UCL. According to UCL, immigrant liability for this is zero and they also apply this same cost liability cheat to expenditure such as overseas aid, government administration costs and debt interest. We are definitely not all in it together according to UCL thinking.

 

They also do not include in their calculation the costs and contributions of the offspring of immigrants once they reach 16. Yes, those all suddenly fall into the lap of the natives.

 

They also reduce the costs attributed to immigrants for the NHS and welfare by trying to work out their 'draw down' (marginal costs again) instead of their premium for these national insurance policies (average cost). They even seek to justify this using the reverse logic they use to justify excluding immigrant offspring post 16 years of age!

 

Another cheat is to share company and capital tax and business rate revenue equally between natives and immigrants resident for more than 10 years... as if in a decade they have caught up with hundreds of years of business development and growth by the natives!

 

It is cheat after cheat. What they have done is decide the result they want (positive contribution for immigrants) and kept adjusting until they got it. It is worthless nonsense. It is a lie.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Zamo

[Titanic99]

So ,what do you think?

Do they pay for interpreters at health centres and police stations?

Do they have kids at school over there?

Do they claim benefits?

Does the UK government pay£175 a month to Spain for each ones health care?

And how many of the above apply to immigrants here?

 

I think anyone who wishes to restrict the movement of people with the end result that we lose young people who pay into the system and that we replace them with a million mainly elderly people should have a very simple lesson in economics as trust me that argument is crazy.

 

---------- Post added 11-11-2015 at 22:59 ----------

 

How other countries run and fund their servicyou'd end up is not my concern. Very few countries offer as generous benefits or free healthcare like we do though. I'm more concerned about how my taxes are being spent in my country.

 

But surely if every country shares your view on restricting immigration you'd end up with a million brits back here and your taxes would increase to pay for their healhcare.

[ukdobby]

Out of interest do we think Spain should send this lot home?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/jul/09/travelnews.spain

 

So what do we want, young fit people who work and pay in to the exchequer or people of an older generation who are more likely to take out?

 

Thing is we don't get free health care and we don't get free interpretation,we have to pay unless you are an OAP who has paid their full stamp in UK then the uk pays for the health care not the interpretor like the UK.