Nagel Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 I realise it will end in tears like every immigration thread on Sheffield Forum, but I found this article on the costs and benefits of immigration on the BBC News site interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373 It seems even the experts have problems working it out. Also immigration from some areas is much more beneficial than others, as you would expect. "Those from the European Economic Area (EEA - the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, the authors noted, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits and services. "Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality," one of the study's authors Christian Dustmann, professor of economics at University College London, said. The story is slightly different for immigrants who came to the UK from outside the EEA in that period. They also put more into the public purse than they took out, but by a smaller margin of 2%. However, studying the numbers in the UCL report more closely, another finding emerges. And that is, that if you look at the figures for the whole of the period under study, 1995-2011, immigration has been a drain on the public purse. To the tune of about £95bn. So how can that be? How can the picture be so radically different if you look six years further into the past?" Now read the rest of the article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 it's quite clear that to balance the books better, Britain should have just let the Indians, Pakistanis, and West Indians in for twenty years, have them work their asses off, and then just sling them all back home, continually replacing them with younger workers before they became a drain on the health and welfare services. Like the way Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait, etc treat their foreign menial workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idoart Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 The thing is we as the general public have had no say in this or being a apart of the eu at all... no democracy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 it's quite clear that to balance the books better, Britain should have just let the Indians, Pakistanis, and West Indians in for twenty years, have them work their asses off, and then just sling them all back home, continually replacing them with younger workers before they became a drain on the health and welfare services. Like the way Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait, etc treat their foreign menial workers. How would you feel if where you live turned round to you and said when you get old we will kick you out back where you came from as you will be a drain on our health and welfare services? The UK is better than Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait in its treatment of foreign workers, this is something the UK can be proud of and seperates us from the dictatorships you mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobos Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Its simple people who are not born here should not be able to claim any kind of benefits at all until they have worked here and contributed to the country for at least five years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill67 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Its simple people who are not born here should not be able to claim any kind of benefits at all until they have worked here and contributed to the country for at least five years.... 5yr no where near enough. economic migrants no work good bye go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Did the report mention the savings due to all the British pensioners moving abroad 'for sun'. I bet it didn't, it therefore is a nonsensical number-glorifying study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Did the report mention the savings due to all the British pensioners moving abroad 'for sun'. I bet it didn't, it therefore is a nonsensical number-glorifying study. Are you saying that pensioners are not entitled to their pensions abroad ? I doubt they are not entitled to what they have put in just because they are out of the country. Its only a nonsensical number-glorifying study if you don't want people discussing it, most folk probably think its a study worth having, if not it would not even be necessary to collate the figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Its simple people who are not born here should not be able to claim any kind of benefits at all until they have worked here and contributed to the country for at least five years.... Leave the EU then. ---------- Post added 25-01-2014 at 22:42 ---------- 5yr no where near enough. economic migrants no work good bye go home. Not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 Did the report mention the savings due to all the British pensioners moving abroad 'for sun'. I bet it didn't, it therefore is a nonsensical number-glorifying study. You can still collect your pension if you live outside the UK can't you? I think there are moves afoot to restrict this although it seems unfair if you have spent your working life supporting previous pensioners through the tax you have paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.