Tommo68 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Migration Watch’s latest report: a ‘stark misapprehension’ and ‘simply wrong’ By James Bloodworth | Published: March 13, 2014 Migration watchj‘Immigrants cost Britain £3,000 a year each’, booms today’s Daily Telegraph. “Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion,” it adds. The ‘findings’, if you can call them that, are from a report by the anti-immigration lobby group Migration Watch which is out today. The report claims that a paper by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM), which appeared to show that immigration was a net benefit to the UK, actually shows that immigration has cost the economy hundreds of billions over 20 years. The Telegraph has predictably regurgitated the Migration Watch press release for a story (I suspect others have too, I just haven’t had a chance to check yet). The problem is that the Migration Watch report is based on a “stark misapprehension” ...............yada yada yada They certainly talked a lot but they don't really say much do they? The whole idea of earning money from being gifted with numbers is to be able to present a set of numbers in such a way as to; prove repute, back-up or deny anything quantative as the customer requests. There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics. No amount of number juggling will convince me or, I believe, thousands of others that immigrants, from the EU or not, on the whole cost us money ... and not just money .... and that its time to stop all immigration. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 No amount of number juggling will convince me or, I believe, thousands of others that immigrants, from the EU or not, on the whole cost us money ... and not just money .... and that its time to stop all immigration. . . That'll be the same 'number juggling' that UKIP and the Right Wing media and politicians were doing when they came up with the 'TIDAL WAVE' of immigrants on 1/1/2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Migration Watch’s latest report: a ‘stark misapprehension’ and ‘simply wrong’ By James Bloodworth | Published: March 13, 2014 Migration watchj‘Immigrants cost Britain £3,000 a year each’, booms today’s Daily Telegraph. “Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion,” it adds. The ‘findings’, if you can call them that, are from a report by the anti-immigration lobby group Migration Watch which is out today. The report claims that a paper by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM), which appeared to show that immigration was a net benefit to the UK, actually shows that immigration has cost the economy hundreds of billions over 20 years. The Telegraph has predictably regurgitated the Migration Watch press release for a story (I suspect others have too, I just haven’t had a chance to check yet). The problem is that the Migration Watch report is based on a “stark misapprehension” and is “simply wrong”. Not my words, but those of one of the authors of the original study on which Migration Watch has based its findings. In a detailed rebuttal of Migration Watch, co-author of the study Professor Christian Dustmann has said that a “serious misinterpretation of the methodology” has led Migration Watch to “invalidate their calculations”. Strong stuff indeed. The mistakes revolve around Migration Watch’s claims that a 2013 paper, ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’ by Professors Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini, has flaws that invalidate the results – namely that immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) who came to the UK after 2000 have contributed substantially more in revenues than they have received in state expenditures. In response, however, Professor Christian Dustmann has criticised Migration Watch for a “serious misinterpretation of the methodology”: “The main criticisms by MigrationWatch relate to three points. The first and second points are unfortunately based on a serious misinterpretation of the methodology we have used in our work, which leads to fundamental mistakes that invalidate their calculations. The third point has been already raised by other commentators in the past,” Professor Dustmann has said. Migration Watch had claimed that Professor Dustmann’s original findings – that EEA immigrants who came to the UK since 2000 have paid in more than they have taken out – are incorrect because they rely on the following three mistaken assumptions, namely that: (1) [Migrant] employees earn the same as the UK-born population; (2) Self-employed migrants contribute far more than those employed; and (3) Migrants own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK. But Professor Dustmann has pointed out that all three of these assertions are wrong: “Their first claim is simply incorrect. At no point do we make assumption (1). We rather allocate earnings (and the ensuing tax receipts) according to the figures on earnings for immigrants and natives that we obtain from the UK Labour Force Survey (LFS). “Their second claim is also incorrect. At no point do we make assumption (2). In fact, in the absence of information on self-employed earnings, we allocate tax payments of the self-employed according to the shares of income tax payments computed for employees. This may rather lead to an underestimate of the income taxes paid by immigrants, as relatively more immigrants are self-employed. “Finally, we have responded to the third point in an earlier reply from November (ignored in the MW report), where we compute an extreme scenario where recent immigrants pay no corporate taxes and business rates whatsoever, and allocate these taxes to long-term residents only. We still find that recent EU immigrant make a positive contribution, while the net contribution of natives remains negative.” He adds that, as a result of these mistakes, Migration Watch’s conclusion that recent immigrants have cost Britain £3,000 a year each is “simply wrong”. The Daily Telegraph shouldn’t have published this completely misleading ‘analysis’ without checking it; but more importantly, considering it is so fundamentally wrong, Migration Watch should now withdraw the report Robert Rowthorn, August ( 2014 ) Migration Watch (2014) claims that D&F exaggerate the earnings and wealth of recent migrants and take inadequate account of their demographic and economic characteristics. As a result, D&F overestimate the amount of revenue that the government receives from these migrants in the form of income tax, national insurance, VAT and other indirect taxes, company taxes and business rates, council tax and inheritance tax. Migration Watch also claims that D&F underestimate the amount of tax credits and housing benefit that recent migrants receive. Dustmann and Frattini (2014b) have responded to these claims by saying that Migration Watch has misunderstood their method for allocating income tax and national insurance. Elsewhere, they tacitly concede (Dustmann and Frattini, 2013b) that they may have exaggerated the amount of tax paid by recent migrants in the form of corporation tax, capital gains tax and business rates. They make no mention of other items, such as indirect taxes, council tax, inheritance tax, tax credits and housing benefit. This may be because D&F have run out of energy, or perhaps they think that Migration Watch is correct. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/LargescaleImmigration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemanbob Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Influx of immigrants 'costs every UK household £350 a year' Last updated at 11:20 17 October 2007 Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, it was claimed yesterday. David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion. In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488011/Influx-immigrants-costs-UK-household-350-year.html#ixzz3CBkdxWSk ---------- Post added 02-09-2014 at 20:39 ---------- Ten years of record immigration to Britain has produced virtually no economic benefits for the country, a parliamentary inquiry has found. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583218/Migration-has-brought-zero-economic-benefit.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Influx of immigrants 'costs every UK household £350 a year' Last updated at 11:20 17 October 2007 Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, it was claimed yesterday. David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion. In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488011/Influx-immigrants-costs-UK-household-350-year.html#ixzz3CBkdxWSk ---------- Post added 02-09-2014 at 20:39 ---------- Ten years of record immigration to Britain has produced virtually no economic benefits for the country, a parliamentary inquiry has found. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583218/Migration-has-brought-zero-economic-benefit.html And both links from longstanding tory rags, so we expect nothing less from their diatribe. I wonder if they have realised that things are the same, if not worse, under this current crop of cronies running the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/LargescaleImmigration This is what CIVITAS concluded..............it's not quite what MIGRATIONWATCH concluded is it? Concluding Remarks Depending on the method of estimation, after various downward adjustments, recent EEA migrants to the UK have either paid their way or generated a modest fiscal surplus. They may not have generated such a large fiscal surplus as D&F claim, but neither have they been a significant drain on the exchequer. Before the economic crisis their adjusted fiscal balance was always positive and the deterioration in this balance during the recession occurred alongside a general deterioration in government finances. The picture was less favourable for non-EEA migrants. However, the situation should improve for both types of migrant http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/rowthorndustmannfrattini.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 This is what CIVITAS concluded..............it's not quite what MIGRATIONWATCH concluded is it? Concluding Remarks Depending on the method of estimation, after various downward adjustments, recent EEA migrants to the UK have either paid their way or generated a modest fiscal surplus. They may not have generated such a large fiscal surplus as D&F claim, but neither have they been a significant drain on the exchequer. Before the economic crisis their adjusted fiscal balance was always positive and the deterioration in this balance during the recession occurred alongside a general deterioration in government finances. The picture was less favourable for non-EEA migrants. However, the situation should improve for both types of migrant http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/rowthorndustmannfrattini.pdf Did you miss this bit, "This may be because D&F have run out of energy, or perhaps they think that Migration Watch is correct. Migration Watch quantifies the effect of these supposed errors in the D&F paper and suggests various adjustments to their average cost estimates. Over the period 2001-2011 as a whole, these adjustments come to an estimated total of £52 billion in current prices. If we exclude the disputed adjustment for personal taxes (income tax and national insurance) the total is still £41 billion. This is a large amount and its accuracy is difficult to judge. However, it is sufficiently large and the supporting evidence is sufficiently strong to believe that Migration Watch is on to something". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Did you miss this bit, "This may be because D&F have run out of energy, or perhaps they think that Migration Watch is correct. Migration Watch quantifies the effect of these supposed errors in the D&F paper and suggests various adjustments to their average cost estimates. Over the period 2001-2011 as a whole, these adjustments come to an estimated total of £52 billion in current prices. If we exclude the disputed adjustment for personal taxes (income tax and national insurance) the total is still £41 billion. This is a large amount and its accuracy is difficult to judge. However, it is sufficiently large and the supporting evidence is sufficiently strong to believe that Migration Watch is on to something". What are MIGRATIONWATCH 'on to' then,if they are claiming this............ “Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion,” it adds....................and CIVITAS has said in so any words that is not the case,like I quoted to you in their concluding remarks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 What are MIGRATIONWATCH 'on to' then,if they are claiming this............ “Immigrants have cost the taxpayer more than £22 million a day since the mid-1990s, totting up a bill of more than £140 billion,” it adds....................and CIVITAS has said in so any words that is not the case,like I quoted to you in their concluding remarks? Perhaps you should ask the author, he wrote both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Perhaps you should ask the author, he wrote both. You've got the bit between your teeth on this one me old pal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.