Ukip. All discussion here please.

[chalga]

The Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz could work out that all those issues cost money... Maybe you should take lessons from the said Scarecrow..

 

As our leader states here the population has risen by 5m in the last ten years with no increases in public services....

 

He also puts to bed the lies, more lies and further lies about UKIP and the NHS.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/553914/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-Ed-Miliband-David-Cameron-NHS-privatise

 

 

Like I said,all you have is hot air and prejudices.............absolutely nothing else worth listening to,and then you pedal right wing media propaganda.................absolute garbage that needs to go straight in the bin marked 'prejudices'...................this is what you need,proper surveys done in the proper way,detailed and accurate,you have nothing:

 

 

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

 

Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

Professor Christian Dustmann

The research provides an in-depth analysis of the net fiscal contribution of UK immigrants, drawing a distinction between immigrants from the 10 Central and East European EU member states that joined since 2004 (the A10), other European Economic Area (EEA) immigrants and non-EEA immigrants. Its main findings are:

 

The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.

Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They were also 7% less likely to live in social housing.

European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are on average better educated than natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable share is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011).

The value of the education of immigrants in the UK labour market who arrived since 2000 and that has been paid for in the immigrants’ origin countries amounts to £6.8bn over the period between 2000 and 2011. By contributing to ‘pure’ public goods (such as defence or basic research), immigrants arriving since 2000 have saved the UK taxpayer an additional £8.5bn over the same period.

Considering all immigrants who were living in the UK over the years between 1995 and 2011, a period over which the net fiscal contribution of natives was negative (and accumulated to about £591bn), EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), while non-EEA immigrants’ contributions were almost 9% lower.

Over the same period from 1995 to 2011, immigrants who lived in the UK endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would have cost about £49bn if it were produced through the UK education system, and contributed about £82bn to fixed or ‘pure’ public goods.

Professor Christian Dustmann, Director of CReAM and co-author of the study, said:

 

“A key concern in the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems. Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU.

 

“Responding to comments on our earlier report on this topic published last year, we performed extensive sensitivity analysis, which does not alter our main conclusions: immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

 

“When we additionally consider that immigrants bring their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and that they contribute to financing fixed public services such as defence, these contributions are even larger.

 

“European immigrants, particularly, both from the new accession countries and the rest of the European Union, make the most substantial contributions. This is mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits.”

 

- See more at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.EjxjQwAZ.dpuf

[Xt500]

Its not 5 million,its 7.5 million and of course we know the actual figures will be far higher.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/364176/7-5-million-migrants-live-in-Britain

 

 

and that's dated 2012.

[Xt500]

that's the whole population of London.

[Ellco]

Like I said,all you have is hot air and prejudices.............absolutely nothing else worth listening to,and then you pedal right wing media propaganda.................absolute garbage that needs to go straight in the bin marked 'prejudices'...................this is what you need,proper surveys done in the proper way,detailed and accurate,you have nothing:

 

 

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

 

Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

Professor Christian Dustmann

The research provides an in-depth analysis of the net fiscal contribution of UK immigrants, drawing a distinction between immigrants from the 10 Central and East European EU member states that joined since 2004 (the A10), other European Economic Area (EEA) immigrants and non-EEA immigrants. Its main findings are:

 

The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.

Immigrants who arrived since 2000 were 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. They were also 7% less likely to live in social housing.

European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are on average better educated than natives (in 2011, 25% of immigrants from A10 countries and 62% of those from EU-15 countries had a university degree, while the comparable share is 24% among natives) and have higher employment rates (81% for A10, 70% for EU-15 and 70% for UK natives in 2011).

The value of the education of immigrants in the UK labour market who arrived since 2000 and that has been paid for in the immigrants’ origin countries amounts to £6.8bn over the period between 2000 and 2011. By contributing to ‘pure’ public goods (such as defence or basic research), immigrants arriving since 2000 have saved the UK taxpayer an additional £8.5bn over the same period.

Considering all immigrants who were living in the UK over the years between 1995 and 2011, a period over which the net fiscal contribution of natives was negative (and accumulated to about £591bn), EEA immigrants contributed 10% more than natives (in relative terms), while non-EEA immigrants’ contributions were almost 9% lower.

Over the same period from 1995 to 2011, immigrants who lived in the UK endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would have cost about £49bn if it were produced through the UK education system, and contributed about £82bn to fixed or ‘pure’ public goods.

Professor Christian Dustmann, Director of CReAM and co-author of the study, said:

 

“A key concern in the public debate on migration is whether immigrants contribute their fair share to the tax and welfare systems. Our new analysis draws a positive picture of the overall fiscal contribution made by recent immigrant cohorts, particularly of immigrants arriving from the EU.

 

“Responding to comments on our earlier report on this topic published last year, we performed extensive sensitivity analysis, which does not alter our main conclusions: immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.

 

“When we additionally consider that immigrants bring their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and that they contribute to financing fixed public services such as defence, these contributions are even larger.

 

“European immigrants, particularly, both from the new accession countries and the rest of the European Union, make the most substantial contributions. This is mainly down to their higher average labour market participation compared with natives and their lower receipt of welfare benefits.”

 

- See more at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration#sthash.EjxjQwAZ.dpuf

 

Someone has to earn £30,000 pa to pay enough income tax for the public services they use. There's not many EU migrants earning that.

[JFKvsNixon]

Someone has to earn £30,000 pa to pay enough income tax for the public services they use. There's not many EU migrants earning that.

 

A lot of the immigrants are younger, so they'll use the NHS less and this country never paid for their education, so you're not comparing like with like.

[anfisa]

Someone has to earn £30,000 pa to pay enough income tax for the public services they use. There's not many EU migrants earning that.

 

The tax paid on £30,000 would be very unlikely to cover the cost of the public services used by someone working in the UK.

[Ellco]

A lot of the immigrants are younger, so they'll use the NHS less and this country never paid for their education, so you're not comparing like with like.

 

If they're younger no doubt they'll have children before they have contributed enough to pay for their education as well then

 

The tax paid on £30,000 would be very unlikely to cover the cost of the public services used by someone working in the UK.

 

I saw this figure quoted a while ago... it might have been years ago..

[anfisa]

A lot of the immigrants are younger, so they'll use the NHS less and this country never paid for their education, so you're not comparing like with like.

 

It does not take long for them to start having kids which can been seen in their increased fertility rates and the result is that our hospitals are struggling under the pressure caused by immigrant birth rates.

[JFKvsNixon]

If they're younger no doubt they'll have children before they have contributed enough to pay for their education as well then

 

As would someone born here, so what is the issue? My point still stands.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2015 at 18:31 ----------

 

It does not take long for them to start having kids which can been seen in their increased fertility rates and the result is that our hospitals are struggling under the pressure caused by immigrant birth rates.

 

Our hospitals are struggling because they're underfunded. We want a Premier League NHS and only want to pay Championship funding.

[Xt500]

As would someone born here, so what is the issue? My point still stands.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2015 at 18:31 ----------

 

Our hospitals are struggling because they're underfunded. We want a Premier League NHS and only want to pay Championship funding.

 

Mate you must live in a room with no windows.You need to open the door and have a good look at reality.

 

start here...

 

"What Labour and their snake oil salesman of a health spokesperson Andy Burnham are trying to obscure with this constant attack on Ukip, is that they in government did in fact privatise large chunks of our National Health Service.

 

They outsourced things like cleaning contracts, with results that we all know have been pretty disastrous.

 

But their really big project was the Private Finance Initiative deals which that doyen of finance, Gordon Brown, signed off on.

 

Fifty billion pounds was raised, and spent on many shiny new hospitals. So far, so good, you might think.

 

But unfortunately the terms of these deals were so favourable to private capital that it has left a repayment bill of a staggering £300bn to the British taxpayer.

And this process of outsourcing has continued, albeit at a slower pace under the Coalition Government. This lot doesn’t even learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. It’s just continuity Labour.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/553914/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-Ed-Miliband-David-Cameron-NHS-privatise