Ukip. All discussion here please.

[chalga]

Its the obvious place to allocate extra money because spending on the NHS is a vote winner.

 

But that's not what I asked,I asked how you know that it WOULD b allocated to the NHS

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2015 at 19:05 ----------

 

No it would not, tax receipts would increase, the benefits bill would fall, the cost of living would fall and public services would improve and the deficit would fall.

 

 

Wrong again:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366934/Britain-needs-7million-MORE-immigrants-50-years-meet-cost-ageing-population.html

 

 

 

 

Health, pension and social care costs are already equivalent to 14 per cent of Britain’s economy but by 2062-63 it will rise to almost 20 per cent.

 

The OBR argues that allowing 140,000 immigrants of working age into Britain each year – totalling 7million over 50 years – would fill jobs and raise taxes for Treasury coffers.

 

‘Our sensitivity analysis shows that overall migration has a positive impact on the sustainability of the public finances over our 50 year horizon,’ the OBR said.

 

It said that if there is a steady flow of immigrants into Britain, government borrowing would rise to 99 per cent of GDP.

 

But if there is a bar on immigration, borrowing would hit 174 per cent.

Edited January 23, 2015 by chalga

[anfisa]

Even with the influx if immigrants, we still have plenty of vacancies for further immigrants. So getting the people off the benefits to take those jobs will not be an overnight fix. In the mean time those jobs need doing.

 

It will never be fixed whilst ever we have an endless supply of cheap labour from abroad, all we are doing is creating a much larger problem for the future.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2015 at 19:08 ----------

 

But that's not what I asked,I asked how you know that it WOULD b allocated to the NHS

 

Wrong again:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366934/Britain-needs-7million-MORE-immigrants-50-years-meet-cost-ageing-population.html

 

I know because it is the obvious place to allocate extra money because spending on the NHS is a vote winner.

 

And I am not wrong.

[chalga]

 

I know because it is the obvious place to allocate extra money because spending on the NHS is a vote winner.

 

And I am not wrong.

 

I would have thought that spending it on extra security against the increased threat of terrorism will be a bigger vote winner,and that is the big threat coming in he next few years............any extra money will go on that.

[Ellco]

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

 

 

Not really the child's grand parents would have been paying tax..

[anfisa]

 

The OBR argues that allowing 140,000 immigrants of working age into Britain each year – totalling 7million over 50 years – would fill jobs and raise taxes for Treasury coffers.

 

Getting 140,000 of Britains unemployed into work each year would not only achieve the same result, it would also free up the money that is spent on supporting them and would not result increasing the population.

 

 

‘Our sensitivity analysis shows that overall migration has a positive impact on the sustainability of the public finances over our 50 year horizon,’ the OBR said.

Selective immigration would increase the posative impact and cut the negative impact.

 

 

It said that if there is a steady flow of immigrants into Britain, government borrowing would rise to 99 per cent of GDP.

Why would we want to increase borrowing?

 

 

But if there is a bar on immigration, borrowing would hit 174 per cent.

 

Who wants to bar all immigration?

[JFKvsNixon]

Not really the child's grand parents would have been paying tax..

 

Which would have paid for the education of the children of the day.

[anfisa]

I would have thought that spending it on extra security against the increased threat of terrorism will be a bigger vote winner,and that is the big threat coming in he next few years............any extra money will go on that.

 

There would be enough for spread around all departments.

[retep]

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://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

 

Still persisting with that tripe,

 

You can put Dustmann in the bin,

 

"The academic who predicted that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would arrive in Britain each year was under fresh fire last night for his latest study which claimed that EU immigration has boosted public finances by £20billion.

 

"Analysis: True picture his figures do not reveal"

 

Read more: http://dailymailco.oppskids.com/news/article-2822825/Expert-migrant-report-man-said-just-13-000-come-Eastern-Europe.html#ixzz3PfvHoc4N

[chalga]

Still persisting with that tripe,

 

You can put Dustmann in the bin,

 

"The academic who predicted that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would arrive in Britain each year was under fresh fire last night for his latest study which claimed that EU immigration has boosted public finances by £20billion.

 

"Analysis: True picture his figures do not reveal"

 

Read more: http://dailymailco.oppskids.com/news/article-2822825/Expert-migrant-report-man-said-just-13-000-come-Eastern-Europe.html#ixzz3PfvHoc4N

 

 

No,the quote I gave was the answer from Dustmann to any criticism that his figures were wrong,and he explains his reasons and answers anything levelled at him,I am quite happy with what he said and his survey...............you can choose to believe what you want.

[Ellco]

Which would have paid for the education of the children of the day.

 

No not really it would have contributed a lot more... They paid tax fro 16 - 65.. they paid more than was needed for their own 2 kids...

 

Do we really need to go on with this... it's quite silly