Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[Zamo]

Since when has working in a bar in one of the Costas become a "profession"?

 

I would make a distinction between people on working holidays and those emigrating. There are some that will stay on but the number of UK residents who emigrate for a beachbum lifestyle are in the minority.

 

Are you seriously suggesting repatriating 2 million mainly young working people and replacing them with 1 million mainly pensioners makes economic sense?

 

No I'm not. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 would come into play. It contains articles that are based on ‘acquired rights’, which individuals build up over time and hold despite any changes in future treaties enacted by their nation. Nobody is going to be repatriated.

 

I'm not being funny but do you have any concept of what Public Services we all have access to and presumably Mr and Mrs Smith would have in Spain.

 

Here's a link to those in Sheffield alone, how do you think Mr and Mrs Smith fund those provided by the state of Spain?

 

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/how-to-contact-us/a-to-z/a.html

 

Mr and Mrs Smith fund those services through the various local taxes in the same way as we do through council tax in this country.

[gomgeg]

The answer to a lot of those (yes, even the kids at school, whole families move out there) is: Yes. Except that the UK pays far more in health care for citizens there, the EHIC has to be compensated.

I was replying to a post asking about pensioners in Spain, but you knew that already, so how many of them have kids at school over there? Probably very few.

Cost of education here about £6K per year per child,another burden on taxpayers.

And while you're talking about reciprocal payments, a couple of months ago it was reported a Nigerian woman came here, checked into hospital for a multiple birth, cost £145K, the NHS wrote it off saying there was not much chance of getting it back.

The simple fact is that a lot of UK tax payers are fed up of funding an open borders policy.

Someone on here talks about white UK kids being behind others, it's a bit ironic that a country that has kids in education like that is such a draw for people from stone Age countries. If we weren't throwing benefits at immigrants perhaps the young strivers here at uni wouldn't be starting a working life loaded down with debt.

[L00b]

I was replying to a post asking about pensioners in Spain, but you knew that already, so how many of them have kids at school over there? Probably very few.

Cost of education here about £6K per year per child, another burden on taxpayers.

Non-point.

 

The vast majority of EU migrants (which is the majority of incoming migrants according to all recent studies that I've seen) arrive in the UK ready-educated at their country's expense, looking for work.

 

Non-EU migrants need to meet minimum educational level as part and parcel of the UK's PBS to get a visa:

Points Scoring

 

Points are awarded under the points based system for the following:

 

-Qualifications (this ranges from GCSE A-Level equivalents to PHD's);

 

-Future Expected Earnings (the salary that is received by the applicant);

 

-Sponsorship (the type of sponsorship you are applying under);

 

-English language skills;

 

-Available maintenance (funds used to support yourself).

So they're ready-educated too.

 

"Antis" on here should make up their mind: is the UK "stealing" other countries' best and brightest, or "wasting" taxpayers money educating illiterate immigrants?

Edited November 12, 2015 by L00b

[chalga]

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.

 

 

Best start accusing the OECD of cheating as well then,because they agree with Dustman.

 

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100221789/immigration-and-the-british-economy-the-awful-truth-is-revealed/

 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is an international think-tank backed by the world’s biggest governments. It crunches numbers on an industrial scale, providing data about developed economies that are regarded by a lot of people as fairly credible.

 

 

 

Today, it’s produced a large report about migration and related issues.

 

Part of that report looks at the fiscal impact of immigration. Broadly, the OECD concludes that migrant workers tend to make a net contribution to the countries they move to. This is because they tend to be younger and more economically active than the average of the wider population in their new country, a population that includes more very young and very old people.

 

At the same time, migrants consume public services. Do they pay in more than they take out? In lots of countries, the OECD concludes that the answer is Yes.

 

There are two ways of measuring the impact of immigration on the public finances.

 

The first is to include pension contributions and payments. However, some people argue that’s a misleading measure, because migrants’ age profile differs from the wider population, and because of the time-lags involved in receiving pensions. So you can estimate the impact excluding pensions.

 

On both measures, the OECD found that international migration is making a positive difference to Britain’s public finances. That is, the Government’s deficit is smaller than it would have been without the presence of immigrants in the UK.

Edited November 12, 2015 by chalga

[gomgeg]

Non-point.

 

The vast majority of EU migrants (which is the majority of incoming migrants according to all recent studies that I've seen) arrive in the UK ready-educated at their country's expense, looking for work.

 

Non-EU migrants need to meet minimum educational level as part and parcel of the UK's PBS to get a visa:So they're ready-educated too.

 

"Antis" on here should make up their mind: is the UK "stealing" other countries' best and brightest, or "wasting" taxpayers money educating illiterate immigrants?

You've got to be joking, go and ask people who work in Sheffield schools how many kids are ready educated.

Antis on here have already made up their mind, it's the open borders brigade who carry on propagating the myth about the brightest and best coming here.

If they were that they would be starring and living in luxury in their homelands.

Or I suppose they're coming here to do humanitarian work.

[L00b]

You've got to be joking,

Eeeh, nope. Dead serious.

go and ask people who work in Sheffield schools how many kids are ready educated.

No kid, British or not, is ever ready-educated: they're being educated.

 

Is your argument about immigrants, or kids of immigrants?

Antis on here have already made up their mind, it's the open borders brigade who carry on propagating the myth about the brightest and best coming here.

I could have sworn Antis on here are forever claiming that foreign countries are all doing bad because the UK is continually stealing their best and brightest, who should therefore go back to make their countries better so that immigration towards the UK stops.

 

Or have I got the rethoric wrong?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not pro open borders, and find the current system (which is not an open border system) just fine and peachy.

If they were that they would be starring and living in luxury in their homelands.

Ah, looks like I had the rethoric just right. Logically, if your argument is about immigrants, that makes you wrong.

 

If your argument is about immigrants' kids, then how about some figures to validate your argument (how many immigrant kids we talking, EU and not, out of how many kids total)

 

My daughter holds dual nationality (incl.Brit), there's a few thousands like her in the UK according to the French Embassy's newsletter, so make sure to avoid double counts

[gomgeg]

Eeeh, nope. Dead serious.

No kid, British or not, is ever ready-educated: they're being educated.

It was you in your previous post who said they were.

Is your argument about immigrants, or kids of immigrants?

Both.

I could have sworn Antis on here are forever claiming that foreign countries are all doing bad because the UK is continually stealing their best and brightest, who should therefore go back to make their countries better so that immigration towards the UK stops.

 

Or have I got the rethoric wrong?

Yes, I can see you're confused, it's the open borders brigade who keep saying that, perhaps their countries aren't doing so well because they're not as bright as you think.

As for the rest of it, I don't need to look for proof, I know from people who work in Sheffield schools what the situation is.

[999tigger]

GOMGEG maybe fix the quotes in it so we can see what you are saying?

 

can you also differeniate between immigrants from the EU, from outside the EU and asylum seekers.

Edited November 12, 2015 by 999tigger

[chalga]

 

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! and

 

 

The taxes that these offspring contribute to the public coffers when they start work at 16 plus,or the spending power they contribute to businesses from the wages they earn?............I would have thought that the UK would be grateful for such things 'falling into their lap'...........especially if the education has taken place in the immigrants own country.

As UCL says below,all those are attributed to natives,so further underestimating the benefits of immigrants:

 

QUOTE UCL survey:

 

this scenario allocates the contribution that the children of immigrants make to

natives while apportioning the cost of their education to immigrants and assigns the average (rather than

marginal) cost of all pure and congestible public goods to immigrants. It is, therefore, likely to underestimate

immigrants’ net fiscal contribution

[gomgeg]

GIMGEG maybe fix the quotes in it so we can see what you are saying?

 

can you also differeniate between immigrants from the EU, from outside the EU and asylum seekers.

Who's GIMGEG? Or are you addressing me? I didn't do that because I don't know how to, I've only recently joined the interweb, and the grandkids have been too busy to go through everything with me, but I do apologise.

No, I can't, but I know they're all putting financial, housing, healthcare and education pressures on the UK, all things that most of the open borders brigade also seem to complain about.