BBC article on the cost or benefit of immigration

[SevenRivers]

The problem is when there is a report that indicates migrants are a net benefit, that is of the group, but is used to justify that every migrant is a net positive contributor, when in fact they're not all net contributors.

 

As across the whole of society, the low paid are usually a net drain on public finances, whilst higher earners are net contributors, and the very wealthy more than make up with their contributions for the net takers.

 

We have had many unskilled low paid migrants come to the country. Like the low paid natives, they will be a net drain. But it only takes a couple of billionaire foreigners to settle here and pay tax here to make up for thousands of low paid migrants who are draining the public purse, and then because they're all grouped as migrants, that is used to say they're all net contributors. If we were to lower the number of low paid migrants coming in who are a net drain, we would get a higher benefit from migration by taking in relatively more skilled and higher paid.

 

An immigration policy of taking in anybody regardless of skills is folly. Having an oversupply of labour at a local level depresses wages. Depressed wages lead to a lower tax take. It makes it harder for natives to get work, so welfare payments remain as they are instead of declining when there are jobs.

[blake]

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.

 

as somebody who lives outside the UK I know a bit about this. The UK is pretty good here, and yes you can get your state pension outside the UK pretty much the same. But just last year the government stopped pensions going to spouses of Brits who are not British citisens after the death of the British wife or husband. I think they have also stopped the paying of the Winter Fuel Allowance in places like the Philippines at least, where the mercury never falls below 20. Though not too sure if they still pay it if somebody retires to Canada, or Siberia.

 

the UK is better than Australia here. I know somebody here in the Philippines who paid 18 years NI stamps in the UK and then immigrated to Australia where he paid their stamps for the rest of his career, about 25 years worth. Then he retired to the Philippines. The Aussies basically told him to go to hell and he couldn't get anything outside Australia, or at least not without jumping through hoops and going back every three months, or something. But the British said thanks for your 18 years of NI contributions and awarded him 60% of the state pension straight away.

[WeX]

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....

 

Like canada for example or Australia where you need to have the cost of a flight home in your bank account too so they can deport you at no cost to the state.

 

Both of these countries are in the top 10 for desirable locations to settle.

[El Cid]

The problem is when there is a report that indicates migrants are a net benefit, that is of the group, but is used to justify that every migrant is a net positive contributor, when in fact they're not all net contributors.

 

 

What thee reports discuss

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

 

are financial growth. GDP increases when a population increases, providing the tax system works for the benefit of that country. The question asked should be how much does migration increase the living standards of the countries population.

Our living standards are hampered by lack of housing, to site just one issue of allowing migration. In my opinion, migration does not benefit the ordinary person in todays economic climate.

[Pritt Stick]

What thee reports discuss

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

 

are financial growth. GDP increases when a population increases, providing the tax system works for the benefit of that country. The question asked should be how much does migration increase the living standards of the countries population.

Our living standards are hampered by lack of housing, to site just one issue of allowing migration. In my opinion, migration does not benefit the ordinary person in todays economic climate.

 

It benefited my girlfriend - regardless of the economy she gets an Indian stud muffin to cuddle up to every night. Rrrraaarrrggghhh!

[Nagel]

It benefited my girlfriend - regardless of the economy she gets an Indian stud muffin to cuddle up to every night. Rrrraaarrrggghhh!

 

So the rumours aren't true?

[ronthenekred]

It benefited my girlfriend - regardless of the economy she gets an Indian stud muffin to cuddle up to every night. Rrrraaarrrggghhh!

 

Is she

You do know you've just inflamed a few gastric ulcers don't you?

 

Where's the nearest lamp-post.

[Zamo]

The numbers are all nonsense and produced by left-thinking people who have set out to prove what they want to be true instead of what is the truth.

 

The reality is that only about 1/5th of the UK population ultimately pay more in than they get out. If it was more than that then our nation wouldn't be in over a trillion pounds worth of debt would we? I suspect only a tiny percentage of immigrants make the top 1/5th.

 

The problem is that these calculation never factor in the cost of services/benefits where people do not directly draw from the state e.g. road building and maintenance, paying for an armed service, nuclear weapons, boarder agencies, running councils, building hospitals and schools etc, etc. These are the perks of being part of our society but for some reason these left-thinking economists choice to ignore these costs and dump them at the door of the indigenous population and therefore totally skew the results.

 

The other mistake is they are only looking at contribution 'to date'. Of course the young, single immigrants from the EU take little directly out of the system. But the big costs come later in life when people start having families and when they get old and retire. Do we really think that immigrants working for minimum wage will pay in enough to cover the future costs? I don't think so.

 

It is true that some immigrants make a superb contribution and we need to hang on to them and encourage others like them to come here. However, the rest need to be turned away at our boarders and those already here encouraged to go back.

 

And there is of course the 'social' cost of immigration without integration which is more difficult to quantify. Allowing immigration that resulted in a sizeable Islamic sub-culture within this country was a mistake... and a mistake we need to stop making. We need to close the door to Muslims (in particular) who do not want to embrace our culture.

[chalga]

 

The problem is that these calculation never factor in the cost of services/benefits where people do not directly draw from the state e.g. road building and maintenance, paying for an armed service, nuclear weapons, boarder agencies, running councils, building hospitals and schools etc, etc. These are the perks of being part of our society but for some reason these left-thinking economists choice to ignore these costs and dump them at the door of the indigenous population and therefore totally skew the results.

 

 

So what you are saying is that immigrants who work and pay contributions to the state in the UK,all their money in those contributions goes nowhere near the things you have listed,but to some magical place that does not pay for any of them,while only the indigenous populations contributions go to these things.........how does that happen then?

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2014 at 13:01 ----------

 

The numbers are all nonsense and produced by left-thinking people who have set out to prove what they want to be true instead of what is the truth.

 

 

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.

 

 

How come the people who compiled the 'nonsense' came up with that conclusion then?............or is that conclusion nonsense?

 

---------- Post added 26-01-2014 at 13:28 ----------

 

 

The other mistake is they are only looking at contribution 'to date'. Of course the young, single immigrants from the EU take little directly out of the system. But the big costs come later in life when people start having families and when they get old and retire. Do we really think that immigrants working for minimum wage will pay in enough to cover the future costs? I don't think so.

 

 

This is the choice you have:

 

QUOTE:

 

That doesn't mean that substantial reductions in net migration would require large tax increases or spending cuts anytime soon - lots of other things will happen and the big fiscal crunch is a long way off. It does, however, usefully illustrate that, other things being equal, if we choose to have much lower levels of migration that will eventually mean taxes being significantly higher, or spending on public services (per person) being significantly lower, than they would otherwise be. That is a useful contribution to the debate.

 

http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/migration-and-public-finances-long-run-obrs-fiscal-sustainability-report#.UuUOTfuxVkg

[SevenRivers]

The numbers are all nonsense and produced by left-thinking people who have set out to prove what they want to be true instead of what is the truth.

 

The reality is that only about 1/5th of the UK population ultimately pay more in than they get out. If it was more than that then our nation wouldn't be in over a trillion pounds worth of debt would we? I suspect only a tiny percentage of immigrants make the top 1/5th.

 

The problem is that these calculation never factor in the cost of services/benefits where people do not directly draw from the state e.g. road building and maintenance, paying for an armed service, nuclear weapons, boarder agencies, running councils, building hospitals and schools etc, etc. These are the perks of being part of our society but for some reason these left-thinking economists choice to ignore these costs and dump them at the door of the indigenous population and therefore totally skew the results.

 

The other mistake is they are only looking at contribution 'to date'. Of course the young, single immigrants from the EU take little directly out of the system. But the big costs come later in life when people start having families and when they get old and retire. Do we really think that immigrants working for minimum wage will pay in enough to cover the future costs? I don't think so.

 

It is true that some immigrants make a superb contribution and we need to hang on to them and encourage others like them to come here. However, the rest need to be turned away at our boarders and those already here encouraged to go back.

 

And there is of course the 'social' cost of immigration without integration which is more difficult to quantify. Allowing immigration that resulted in a sizeable Islamic sub-culture within this country was a mistake... and a mistake we need to stop making. We need to close the door to Muslims (in particular) who do not want to embrace our culture.

 

A very sensible and logical post Zamo.