More Brits claiming Benefit abroad than Immigrants here

[WiseOwl182]

How do you know they're going to be a net recipient at the point of them coming in and likewise how do you know Brits going abroad will be net contributors?

 

Border controls the same as for non-EU migrants would filter out net recipients.

 

It's up to other countries how they handle their migration policy with regards to any indomitable Brits, none of our business.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 15:33 ----------

 

60% of the UK household is in negative. That's about 35 million people sponging off the tax payer.

 

You seem to be arguing they should not be here. Yet many are working and vital jobs.

 

Maybe we should get rid of 80% of the nurses because they are not positive contributors economically?

 

No, I'm talking about controlling incomers, not people already here.

 

By the nature of an economy there's always going to be net recipients and net contributors. Let's get employers paying more and stop tax credits to reduce the need of net recipients further.

[colinsdog]

Let's get employers paying more and stop tax credits to reduce the need of net recipients further.

 

Big gap between the NMW and the NET contributors thresh hold.

 

You are proposing a solution to the living wage there, but the net / positive ratio remains the same.

 

I just accept immigrants are coming in, many are doing low paid jobs brits dont want to do. Some are doing professional jobs. Some are on benefits.

 

But if we stamp out the benefit tourism it at least solves 50% of the problem.

Edited November 13, 2015 by colinsdog
ratio

[Zamo]

I agree with you on this one chap.

 

A family of 4, 2 parents and 2 small children, 1 of them works a £50k job and the other doesn't work is probably a negative contributor when all benefits and subsidies are worked out (due to small kids).

 

That may be true but I don't think we can look at positive or negative contribution in that way i.e. on an individual/family basis based on direct benefits and services received.

 

Yes, a couple with young kids costs the State more right now than a couple without kids. But in 30 years time, when both couples are retired, it will be those kids making the contributions that keep the country going. Investing in the education of the future generation is an investment that ultimately benefits both couples equally and as such the cost must be shared equally. The same principle can be applied to just about every State expenditure because we all benefit in some way from the investment.

 

The only valid way to calculate positive/negative contribution is to base it on equal share of the total state expenditure. Usage breakdowns and benefit proportioning omit both indirect and future benefits and are a complete red herring. The only reason we have started doing this is because the contribution of immigrants using share of expenditure is so dismal and people fear the response from the public if the truth is admitted. It is an exercise in misleading the public... just like the disingenuous 'report' linked to by the OP is.

[L00b]

A family of 4, 2 parents and 2 small children, 1 of them works a £50k job and the other doesn't work is probably a negative contributor when all benefits and subsidies are worked out (due to small kids).

What "benefits and subsidies" do you think such a household is entitled to, out of interest?

 

I mean, other than the standard child benefit (which starts to tail off at £50k and ends completely at £60k)?

 

Child benefit for 2 small children on your example: £1823 (£76 per child per month). Drops to £1641 at £51k, <...> £912 at £55k, <...> £0 at £60k.

[WiseOwl182]

Big gap between the NMW and the NET contributors thresh hold.

 

You are proposing a solution to the living wage there, but the net / positive ratio remains the same.

 

I just accept immigrants are coming in, many are doing low paid jobs brits dont want to do. Some are doing professional jobs. Some are on benefits.

 

But if we stamp out the benefit tourism it at least solves 50% of the problem.

 

 

We don't need immigrants taking low paid jobs and claiming working tax credits. We don't want more net recipients. Instead, introduce the living wage as proposed, and get Brits off benefits and into the jobs immigrants are taking. If they won't do them, they lose any benefit entitlement, as it needs the stick as well as the carrot (living wage). Of course they'd still be net recipients but to a much lesser extent, and without the added pressure of additional net recipients from abroad.

[biotechpete]

That may be true but I don't think we can look at positive or negative contribution in that way i.e. on an individual/family basis based on direct benefits and services received.

 

Yes, a couple with young kids costs the State more right now than a couple without kids. But in 30 years time, when both couples are retired, it will be those kids making the contributions that keep the country going. Investing in the education of the future generation is an investment that ultimately benefits both couples equally and as such the cost must be shared equally. The same principle can be applied to just about every State expenditure because we all benefit in some way from the investment.

 

The only valid way to calculate positive/negative contribution is to base it on equal share of the total state expenditure. Usage breakdowns and benefit proportioning omit both indirect and future benefits and are a complete red herring. The only reason we have started doing this is because the contribution of immigrants using share of expenditure is so dismal and people fear the response from the public if the truth is admitted. It is an exercise in misleading the public... just like the disingenuous 'report' linked to by the OP is.

 

Holy moly! I just did a quick calculation based on UK expenditure for 2015 http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2015UKbn and total population http://countrymeters.info/en/United_Kingdom_(UK)

 

So roughly £750bn/65million that's government expenditure of ~£11500per person. That, to me was quite a surprising level of expenditure for one thing. But that means anyone paying less tax than that, per head in the household, is a net drain?

[colinsdog]

What "benefits and subsidies" do you think such a household is entitled to, out of interest?

 

I mean, other than the standard child benefit (which starts to tail off at £50k and ends completely at £60k)?

 

Child benefit for 2 small children on your example: £1823 (£76 per child per month). Drops to £1641 at £51k, <...> £912 at £55k, <...> £0 at £60k.

 

numerous factors. Schooling for instance.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 17:35 ----------

 

We don't need immigrants taking low paid jobs and claiming working tax credits. We don't want more net recipients. Instead, introduce the living wage as proposed, and get Brits off benefits and into the jobs immigrants are taking. If they won't do them, they lose any benefit entitlement, as it needs the stick as well as the carrot (living wage). Of course they'd still be net recipients but to a much lesser extent, and without the added pressure of additional net recipients from abroad.

 

ideally we don't want low paid jobs anyway. With a progressively low tax economy like the UK is at the moment, it kind of cancels out your equation.

[WiseOwl182]

numerous factors. Schooling for instance.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 17:35 ----------

 

 

ideally we don't want low paid jobs anyway. With a progressively low tax economy like the UK is at the moment, it kind of cancels out your equation.

 

There will always be lower paid and higher paid jobs. If you pay a shop worker 50k a year, why bother going to uni or furthering yourself in any way? If the higher paid jobs all go up as a result too, then it cancels it out due to the inflation that would inevitably follow, and you'd be back to lower and higher paying jobs again.

[colinsdog]

That may be true but I don't think we can look at positive or negative contribution in that way i.e. on an individual/family basis based on direct benefits and services received.

 

Yes, a couple with young kids costs the State more right now than a couple without kids. But in 30 years time, when both couples are retired, it will be those kids making the contributions that keep the country going. Investing in the education of the future generation is an investment that ultimately benefits both couples equally and as such the cost must be shared equally. The same principle can be applied to just about every State expenditure because we all benefit in some way from the investment.

 

The only valid way to calculate positive/negative contribution is to base it on equal share of the total state expenditure. Usage breakdowns and benefit proportioning omit both indirect and future benefits and are a complete red herring. The only reason we have started doing this is because the contribution of immigrants using share of expenditure is so dismal and people fear the response from the public if the truth is admitted. It is an exercise in misleading the public... just like the disingenuous 'report' linked to by the OP is.

 

According to this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

 

Number-crunchers at Smith & Williamson, the accountancy and investment group, then computed the benefits received and taxes paid, on an average household basis, for each group.

It showed that the top 40pc of households, ranked by earnings, carried the burden. The lower-earning 60pc are net beneficiaries of the system, taking more back in benefits than they contribute in the many forms of tax to which we are all subject.

The point at which a household switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 17:47 ----------

 

There will always be lower paid and higher paid jobs. If you pay a shop worker 50k a year, why bother going to uni or furthering yourself in any way? If the higher paid jobs all go up as a result too, then it cancels it out due to the inflation that would inevitably follow, and you'd be back to lower and higher paying jobs again.

 

Depends how much that £50k is worth.

 

There will always be lower and higher paid jobs.

 

but if the tax threshold and bands keep rising then the majority of workers are not in tax and even professionals are not reaching the higher tax band so it will be impossible to increase net contributors.

[WiseOwl182]

According to this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

 

Number-crunchers at Smith & Williamson, the accountancy and investment group, then computed the benefits received and taxes paid, on an average household basis, for each group.

It showed that the top 40pc of households, ranked by earnings, carried the burden. The lower-earning 60pc are net beneficiaries of the system, taking more back in benefits than they contribute in the many forms of tax to which we are all subject.

The point at which a household switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2015 at 17:47 ----------

 

 

Depends how much that £50k is worth.

 

There will always be lower and higher paid jobs.

 

but if the tax threshold and bands keep rising then the majority of workers are not in tax and even professionals are not reaching the higher tax band so it will be impossible to increase net contributors.

 

 

In that scenario net contributors would still increase by virtue of a reduction in state spending on welfare. The average cost per head would fall.