Economic Migrants:what if they can't earn enough to support themselves

[L00b]

You were the one to bring it up first...you tell us how much we'd be losing...

According to the first link I posted above, depending on the source, £20bn, or £2k a head.

Rather than being “benefit tourists”, migrants to the UK make a net contribution, as they pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. A UCL study this month found that the UK gains £20bn from European migrants. And a study by the OECD last year found that migrants make a net contribution of over £2000 per head.

That's short-term/theoretical of course, as the labour vacuum would be filled to at least some extent by indigenous jobseekers, mitigating the loss to a corresponding extent. The real issue is how much of the lost value could be mitigated, since I expect that it's relatively straightforward to replace an unskilled Polish farmhand with a British one...but maybe not so with an Iraqi nano-engineer, French heart surgeon or US M&A legal eagle Edited April 24, 2015 by L00b

[truman]

According to the first link I posted above, depending on the source, £20bn, or £2k a head.

That's short-term/theoretical of course, as the labour vacuum would be filled to at least some extent by indigenous jobseekers, mitigating the loss to a corresponding extent. The real issue is how much of the lost value could be mitigated, since I expect that it's relatively straightforward to replace an unskilled Polish farmhand with a British one...but maybe not so with an Iraqi nano-engineer, French heart surgeon or US M&A legal eagle

 

But there's no guarantee that all these would go "cash in hand" if they couldn't claim benefits for a length of time (especially the nano engineer,pilot or surgeon) that was the point chalga made.. and the one I was addressing..

[loraward]

According to the first link I posted above, depending on the source, £20bn, or £2k a head.

 

Rather than being “benefit tourists”, migrants to the UK make a net contribution, as they pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. A UCL study this month found that the UK gains £20bn from European migrants. And a study by the OECD last year found that migrants make a net contribution of over £2000 per head.

 

That's short-term/theoretical of course, as the labour vacuum would be filled to at least some extent by indigenous jobseekers, mitigating the loss to a corresponding extent. The real issue is how much of the lost value could be mitigated, since I expect that it's relatively straightforward to replace an unskilled Polish farmhand with a British one...but maybe not so with an Iraqi nano-engineer, French surgeon or Dutch airline pilot

 

Only because they ignored most of the costs associated with high levels of immigration, but at least EU migrants put more in and take less out than non EU migrants, which begs the question why does the government allow such high levels of immigration from outside the EU, if they cut non EU immigration to zero it would cut the total number.

[chalga]

This is what has happened by simply not allowing A2 workers,Bulgarian and Romanian,to access the UK labour market for 7 years after they officially joined the EU:

 

 

 

According to its critics, the current policy on A2 workers has created a system that deprives the state of tax revenues, undercuts British labour and leaves foreigners open to exploitation.

 

Labour MP Jim Sheridan has argued for tighter regulation of the employment agencies in the construction sector, along the lines of the licensing of agricultural gangmasters.

 

Others call for reducing self-employment in the sector by making construction firms hire more workers directly. However, this would also shift the burden for NI contributions – nearly 14 per cent of the wage bill – on to the employers.

 

UCATT convenor Dave Allen admits this is unlikely to happen, as it would leave the big firms with smaller budgets. “The government knows that if everybody was directly employed, the economy might suffer,” he says.

 

Bridget Anderson, deputy director and senior research fellow at Oxford University’s migration think-tank COMPAS, says the government should, at the very least, enforce the minimum wage regulations on all workers, British and foreign, self-employed or not.

 

She says the rhetoric about protecting British jobs was misleading: the curbs had undermined the established workforce while benefitting businesses by giving them a more pliant workforce.

 

“The more you focus on immigration control, the more you introduce transitional arrangements – the more you create a labour force that is actually more desirable for employers,” she said.

 

EU members cannot prevent the citizens of other member states from travelling to their countries for work. They can only impose “transitional controls” of the kind currently in place in the UK against Romanians and Bulgarians.

 

The UK is just one of several EU states that have imposed restrictions on A2 workers. Similar restrictions exist in Austria, Germany, Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

 

By law, the curbs must be lifted by January 2014. However, a statement issued by the UK Border Agency last year confirmed it would apply similar “transitional restrictions” on all new EU member states to ensure that “migration benefits the UK and does not adversely impact our labour market’’.

 

The UK’s Border Agency, the immigration minister, and the Department for Work and Pensions all declined to be interviewed for this article.

 

Sorana Stanescu is a Bucharest-based journalist. This article was edited by Neil Arun. It was produced as part of the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, an initiative of the Robert Bosch Stiftung and ERSTE Foundation, in cooperation with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. All photographs from Getty Images.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/cheap-and-far-free-migrant-army-building-britain

Edited April 24, 2015 by chalga

[L00b]

But there's no guarantee that all these would go "cash in hand" if they couldn't claim benefits for a length of time (especially the nano engineer,pilot or surgeon) that was the point chalga made.. and the one I was addressing..

Until and unless chalga comes up with stats of some sort about the contributory levels of benefit-claiming unskilled migrants, an averaged value (which includes that dataset) is all I've got to offer I'm afraid

 

There's no guarantee either that the UK will exit the EU (and the EFTA/EEA so as to be in a position to disallow the free inward movement of skilled/unskilled labour)

[sgtkate]

This is what has happened by simply not allowing A2 workers,Bulgarian and Romanian,to access the UK labour market for 7 years after they officially joined the EU:

 

According to its critics, ...

 

<shortened for brevity>

...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/10/cheap-and-far-free-migrant-army-building-britain

 

Chalga, we can all go and find random articles backing up our viewpoint. It's the internet after all! Go and find some figures from independent sources like the IFS, the OBR, FoI requests etc.

[chalga]

Chalga, we can all go and find random articles backing up our viewpoint. It's the internet after all! Go and find some figures from independent sources like the IFS, the OBR, FoI requests etc.

 

I'm not claiming any figures.........I'm stating a view,mine.That is the view that if migrants cannot see the point in paying taxes and contributing to the UK coffers,because they are not going to see any benefit,they may well decide to work cash in hand and not contribute..........you don't get them figures from sources you wrote,you get them from migrants,and I know of migrants who have said that.

The story I published was a direct result of depriving EU migrants direct access to the UK labour market,the view of which according to some,deprived the UK of tax receipts.

[Cyclone]

I'm not sure about this. It certainly doesn't allow you to just go and start claiming benefits on day one. I live in Southern Europe and I had to work 6 months before I could receive publicly insured health care. I'm also pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to receive unemployment benefit as soon as I landed.

 

This is fundamentally one of the major downfalls of an EU which includes countries with different economic strengths. There's no benefit to countries like the UK and Germany opening their borders to countries like Slovakia because it's always going to be completely one-sided. The stronger country ends up gaining a mass amount of immigrants and having to pay out to accommodate them while the weaker country gains none and has to pay out nothing. It levels the playing field but at the expense of the stronger countries.

 

And the stronger countries in the UK never thought of this whilst drawing up the agreement?

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:38 ----------

 

 

Leave the EU.........there's your answer.

Plus,stopping migrants from claiming benefits for a length of time,after they have paid into the system,only encourages them to work for cash in hand,especially if they are only intending to stay for a relatively short time...........they get no benefit,so why pay tax.............result,UK loses tax revenue.

 

Answer to a non problem by the look of it.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:38 ----------

 

Give us the figures then

 

Show us that it's a problem that needs fixing.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:40 ----------

 

Only because they ignored most of the costs associated with high levels of immigration, but at least EU migrants put more in and take less out than non EU migrants, which begs the question why does the government allow such high levels of immigration from outside the EU, if they cut non EU immigration to zero it would cut the total number.

 

None EU immigration is on a points based system, we only take the people we want and who we believe will be a benefit to the country.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 16:42 ----------

 

I'm not claiming any figures.........I'm stating a view,mine.That is the view that if migrants cannot see the point in paying taxes and contributing to the UK coffers,because they are not going to see any benefit,they may well decide to work cash in hand and not contribute..........you don't get them figures from sources you wrote,you get them from migrants,and I know of migrants who have said that.

The story I published was a direct result of depriving EU migrants direct access to the UK labour market,the view of which according to some,deprived the UK of tax receipts.

 

Stories from migrants that you know are (for us) unqualifiable, and in any case anecdotal.

[loraward]

 

None EU immigration is on a points based system, we only take the people we want and who we believe will be a benefit to the country.

 

Not according to the report that say EU migrants make a posative contribution.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

 

Immigration from outside Europe 'cost £120 billion'

New report shows immigration from outside Europe over the Labour government years cost the public purse billions of pounds, while recent migration from inside Europe generated a £4 billion surplus.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html

 

Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EEA arrivals.

 

Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10426202/Migrants-more-likely-to-claim-work-benefits-than-Britons.html

 

Migrants more likely to claim work benefits than Britons

Migrants are 20 per cent more likely to be claiming working tax credit than Britons, it is claimed.

Nearly 500,000 migrants are claiming the in-work benefit, a former HM Revenue and Customs official said.

[sgtkate]

Not according to the report that say EU migrants make a posative contribution.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

 

Immigration from outside Europe 'cost £120 billion'

New report shows immigration from outside Europe over the Labour government years cost the public purse billions of pounds, while recent migration from inside Europe generated a £4 billion surplus.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html

 

Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EEA arrivals.

 

Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10426202/Migrants-more-likely-to-claim-work-benefits-than-Britons.html

 

Migrants more likely to claim work benefits than Britons

Migrants are 20 per cent more likely to be claiming working tax credit than Britons, it is claimed.

Nearly 500,000 migrants are claiming the in-work benefit, a former HM Revenue and Customs official said.

 

Aren't those figures fascinating! If you asked the VAST majority of the people, myself probably included, which group of immigrants do you think contribute the most to the economy I would have said without a moments hesitation, the non-EU ones! Logic would say that they are only allowed in if they have a certain skill, have a job in place already, etc. But clearly I'd have been very wrong indeed.