Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
spyguy

Tax Credits + Eu Immigrants

Recommended Posts

Caught last bit of an argument on R4 this morning (30 April).

Andrew Green (Migratation Watch) vs. some plank.

Argument was to do with some new research out today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10796558/Quarter-of-eastern-European-workers-pay-just-1-a-week-in-tax-says-report.html

Unfortunately, he (Green) is right. Tax credits are a f-cking disaster. They are a double disaster for the UK with EU expansion.

The plank arguing against him was banging on about low paid people paying lots of indirect tax. For example, he said, cigarettes are heavily taxed. Now, I don't know about you but none of the poorish people I know who smoke - UK as well as E.European - actually smoke UK taxed fags. To man + woman they smoke black market fags and roll-ups/loose tobacco.

Then the argument switched to tax credits are not the biggest benefit (they are not), health and education spending are. Forgetting that the immigrants use both - probably more than a native born person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, indirect tax.

Net drain on the economy, lot of net income/tax credits/benefits savings going straight overseas to their home, their family, their country.

The poorer in this country are paying for the destruction of their own livelihoods, careers, housing options. It is the poorper who disproportionately pay most indirect tax, it isn't sheltered in sweetheart agreements with the hmrc or offshored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught last bit of an argument on R4 this morning (30 April).

Andrew Green (Migratation Watch) vs. some plank.

Argument was to do with some new research out today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10796558/Quarter-of-eastern-European-workers-pay-just-1-a-week-in-tax-says-report.html

Unfortunately, he (Green) is right. Tax credits are a f-cking disaster. They are a double disaster for the UK with EU expansion.

The plank arguing against him was banging on about low paid people paying lots of indirect tax. For example, he said, cigarettes are heavily taxed. Now, I don't know about you but none of the poorish people I know who smoke - UK as well as E.European - actually smoke UK taxed fags. To man + woman they smoke black market fags and roll-ups/loose tobacco.

Then the argument switched to tax credits are not the biggest benefit (they are not), health and education spending are. Forgetting that the immigrants use both - probably more than a native born person.

Caught last bit of an argument on R4 this morning (30 April).

Andrew Green (Migratation Watch) vs. some plank.

Argument was to do with some new research out today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10796558/Quarter-of-eastern-European-workers-pay-just-1-a-week-in-tax-says-report.html

Unfortunately, he (Green) is right. Tax credits are a f-cking disaster. They are a double disaster for the UK with EU expansion.

The plank arguing against him was banging on about low paid people paying lots of indirect tax. For example, he said, cigarettes are heavily taxed. Now, I don't know about you but none of the poorish people I know who smoke - UK as well as E.European - actually smoke UK taxed fags. To man + woman they smoke black market fags and roll-ups/loose tobacco.

Then the argument switched to tax credits are not the biggest benefit (they are not), health and education spending are. Forgetting that the immigrants use both - probably more than a native born person.

1+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

You are wrong the majority of EU immigrantes are low skilled and are here because of one thing, they get 4+ times the wage they could get at home that is if they could get a job at all, they also claim benifits for children who live back home and sent monies home to keep them, how does that benefit our economy,They send money home to buy property in their own country How does that benefit our economy,they are also now importing more and more of their own food stuffs, were is that benefiting our economy, They reduce the prospect of Uk born people from getting a job causing unemployment on a masive scale which means more benefits being paid out, How does that benefit our economy. We have thousands of EU migrates on full benefits, how does that benefit our economy, One in 4 babies born in our hospitals are from foriegn parents and are strugling to cope and the same goes for schools, how does that benefit our economy, We have over 4000 EU prisoners in our jails, how does that benefit our economy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

When it was nations of similar wealthh to the UK that may have been the case, but to try and tell me the millions of people from the former Iron Curtain nations are better educated and net contributors is just a lie and utter balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

Not too sure about that. Wasn't it recently reported that you need to be earning £27,000 pa to not be a net drain on all forms of welfare. The average wage in the uk isn't even £27,000 pa so how unskilled economic migrants are somehow adding to the pot I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

Not according to the OECD- http://*******.com/n77pqoz- but they are not anti Immigration per se they think that in Switzerland it is great for the economy. Of course Switzerland has a very different policy from the UK.

However either way the amounts are not going to save//destroy the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not according to the OECD- http://*******.com/n77pqoz- but they are not anti Immigration per se they think that in Switzerland it is great for the economy. Of course Switzerland has a very different policy from the UK.

However either way the amounts are not going to save//destroy the economy.

I disagree.

POst dot com crash IT was in a state. What the governemtn did was open the spigots to visa'd individuals, brought here by all the big corporates.

You only have to look at the takeup of computing and IT amongst UK youngsters to see the very severe results. Against a tide of swelling tertiary education for those subjects numbers have collapsed.

Very similar has happened on a sector by sector basis in different ways, he overall effect is very large indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

POst dot com crash IT was in a state. What the governemtn did was open the spigots to visa'd individuals, brought here by all the big corporates.

You only have to look at the takeup of computing and IT amongst UK youngsters to see the very severe results. Against a tide of swelling tertiary education for those subjects numbers have collapsed.

Very similar has happened on a sector by sector basis in different ways, he overall effect is very large indeed.

Good point but you forget in the UK a lot of people, don't care about young people and they often vote for the people who make life difficult for them. Better that the young have problems getting jobs than be risked called racist.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong the majority of EU immigrantes are low skilled and are here because of one thing, they get 4+ times the wage they could get at home that is if they could get a job at all, they also claim benifits for children who live back home and sent monies home to keep them, how does that benefit our economy,They send money home to buy property in their own country How does that benefit our economy,they are also now importing more and more of their own food stuffs, were is that benefiting our economy, They reduce the prospect of Uk born people from getting a job causing unemployment on a masive scale which means more benefits being paid out, How does that benefit our economy. We have thousands of EU migrates on full benefits, how does that benefit our economy, One in 4 babies born in our hospitals are from foriegn parents and are strugling to cope and the same goes for schools, how does that benefit our economy, We have over 4000 EU prisoners in our jails, how does that benefit our economy,

Perhaps I can counter your uninformed little rant with some actual data:

Arrivals from EEA countries since 2000 have worked more and received less in benefits than average Briton, academics argue

Migrants coming to the UK since the year 2000 have been less likely to receive benefits or use social housing than people already living in the country, according to a study that argues the new arrivals have made a net contribution of £25bn to public finances.

People from European Economic Area countries have been the most likely to make a positive contribution, paying about 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, according to the findings from University College London's migration research unit. Other immigrants paid about 2% more than they received.

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

The academics also found that recent immigrants from the EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – participated more in the labour market. Their study was based predominantly on official reports including the British Labour Force Survey as well as tax data and public expenditure statistics. The EEA immigrants were also more likely to have a university degree than British people.

Dustmann said: "Our research shows that in contrast with most other European countries, the UK attracts highly educated and skilled immigrants from within the EEA as well as from outside. What’s more, immigrants who arrived since 2000 have made a very sizeable net fiscal contribution and therefore helped to reduce the fiscal burden on UK-born workers.

"Our study also suggests that over the last decade or so the UK has benefitted fiscally from immigrants from EEA countries, who have put in considerably more in taxes and contributions than they received in benefits and transfers.

"Given this evidence, claims about 'benefit tourism' by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality."

Migrants contribute £25bn to UK economy, study finds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If immigrants are less likely to receive social housing then why in some areas are entire councils estates taken over by immigrants?

Funny how under 45s are far worse off then their parents generation when we have had all this immigration that i am told has made us all richer.

I dont trust the research.

Edited by Corruption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

I am sceptical that this will be true eventually, accounting is done on a current basis, the demographic of immigrants is still young. If you included accruing liabilities.....the NHS at £4,000 per annum in retirement and state pension at £7,000 per year then I can't see how the migrants will ever be able to pay for these benefits....and that exclused all the other stuff like disability and hosusing benefits that are also accruing.

Tbf the indigenous population leave a debt on death of £240,000 per head....excess benefits over tax...immigrants will do the same. Raising population when we are all liabilities makes no sense. It is all about trying to keeping a welfare Ponzi going, and eventually they will be the problem not the solution as they reach retirement and want their Ponzi pay out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is whom Christian Dustmann works for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an economic research institute based in London, United Kingdom, which specialises in UK taxation and public policy.[1] It is politically independent and produces both academic and policy-related findings,[1] though has faced criticism for a perceived neoliberal bias.[2][3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is whom Christian Dustmann works for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an economic research institute based in London, United Kingdom, which specialises in UK taxation and public policy.[1] It is politically independent and produces both academic and policy-related findings,[1] though has faced criticism for a perceived neoliberal bias.[2][3]

Now those really are weasel words. I could equally truthfully say that UKIP has "faced criticism for a perceived" racist agenda, couldn't I? I wouldn't stoop so low though. How about discussing the data rather than trying to smear the researchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I can counter your uninformed little rant with some actual data:

Migrants contribute £25bn to UK economy, study finds

Here is a rebuttal which the famously impartial Guardian forgot to print

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/PRimmigration.html

"

Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at UCL, and Civitas statistician Nigel Williams spell out in two complementary papers a series of flaws in Dustmann and Frattini's findings:

• Their claim is based on large assumptions about contributions and receipts, particularly in respect of transport and housing;

• The actual difference in net contributions is a relatively small sum, which would vanish under a different treatment of a few assumptions, such as capital investment in social housing;

• They have used methods that the suppliers of the data specifically warned against;

• Their modelling of the receipt of benefits is based on an inadequate understanding of the structure of the original survey.

Dustmann and Frattini claimed to have calculated "precise" estimates for annual expenditure on immigrants and the revenues those immigrants have generated in comparison to native born workers.

Professor Stone writes: "If any honest statistician had made the same painstaking but assumption-based calculations, the last word he/she would have used to describe the estimates is 'precise' - unless exhaustion had affected judgement.

Prof Stone and Mr Williams point out that Professor Dustmann was one of the academics behind the pre-accession projections of immigration from Poland and other Eastern European nations in 2004 which were proved entirely wrong by events.

That report, 'The Impact of EU Enlargement on Migration Flows' (2003), predicted an annual net inflow of between 5,000 and 13,000 individuals. In the event, more than a million have arrived in almost a decade.

Prof Stone was one of the first to raise the alarm over their findings, in another Civitas paper, 'Prediction of future migration flows to the UK and Germany' (2003).

"

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is whom Christian Dustmann works for.

http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is an economic research institute based in London, United Kingdom, which specialises in UK taxation and public policy.[1] It is politically independent and produces both academic and policy-related findings,[1] though has faced criticism for a perceived neoliberal bias.[2][3]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies

http://

www.ifs.org.uk/aboutIFS

But to undertake basic research, and to respond flexibly to policy development, we rely crucially on the core funding we receive from the Economic and Social Research Council. Without this support, the IFS could not have become what it is today.

Thanks to this support, the media, policymakers, businesspeople and politicians of every stripe can trust our judgement. As Gordon Brown said a decade ago, on our 30th anniversary, the IFS has "established itself as an indispensable British institution". We hope we can rely on your support in continuing to play that role.

Remember Gordon Brown and bigotgate?

The Economic and Social Research Council

http://

www.esrc.ac.uk/

What we do

We are the UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues. We support independent, high quality research which has an impact on business, the public sector and the third sector. At any one time we support over 4,000 researchers and postgraduate students in academic institutions and independent research institutes.

We are a non-departmental public body (NDPB) established by Royal Charter in 1965 and receive most of our funding through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

What we do

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) is the department for economic growth. The department invests in skills and education to promote trade, boost innovation and help people to start and grow a business. BIS also protects consumers and reduces the impact of regulation.

and Vince Cable is the Secretary of State for BIS and his own opinions on the benefits of immigration are known.

Of course they all claim to be independent (like the BoE).

The actual funding for the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the the Economic and Social Research Council is unclear from the web sites although from their web sites it's clear that they both receive most of their funding through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) - a government department which is of course taxpayer funded although individual political parties in government receive donations from other sources including business.

Independent - make your own mind up.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Institute for Fiscal Studies

Remember Gordon Brown and bigotgate?

The Economic and Social Research Council

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)

and Vince Cable is the Secretary of State for BIS and his own opinions on the benefits of immigration are known.

Of course they all claim to be independent (like the BoE).

The actual funding for The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the The Economic and Social Research Council is unclear from the web sites although from their web sites it's clear that they both receive most of their funding through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) - a government body which is of course taxpayer funded although individual political parties in government receive donations from other sources including business.

Independent - make your own mind up.

I am a immigrant to several countries around the world so far. I am highly skilled, have been tested for diseases before being allowed to work, and am able to claim NO health or social security benefits. If I leave my job I MUST leave the country within a short period. I pay tax, of course, but my job would be here anyway and a native, if doing the job, would be paying the same tax.

Even with these sensible controls, I am aware that I am still occupying a home that a native could be living in, taking a job that a native might grow in to, and most of the funds I earn will go overseas and not benefit my host countries. I am using energy and polluting more than a native due to my western lifestyle. When one of my kids was born, I used a local hospital and paid - but occupied a bed a native could have used. In short, I am a parasite.

I am in the top 5% of global immigrants by skill set and income. If I am not an overall benefit, then how the hell can the majority of low skilled, low income people going into the UK be. Studies like the ones quoted above massage the NUMBERS but fail to count all the opportunity cost and non-financial impacts of people like me.

Luckily, I think many people in the UK have now woken up to the fact that mass immigration is bad for the majority of natives. the cries of 'racist' or 'they make you richer' are sounding increasingly shrill and desperate.

Oh, and with zero immigration in the UK over the past 20 years, there is a good chance I would still be in the UK, as housing costs, tax, and overpopulation would be less. So that's another black mark against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sceptical that this will be true eventually, accounting is done on a current basis, the demographic of immigrants is still young. If you included accruing liabilities.....the NHS at £4,000 per annum in retirement and state pension at £7,000 per year then I can't see how the migrants will ever be able to pay for these benefits....and that exclused all the other stuff like disability and hosusing benefits that are also accruing.

Tbf the indigenous population leave a debt on death of £240,000 per head....excess benefits over tax...immigrants will do the same. Raising population when we are all liabilities makes no sense. It is all about trying to keeping a welfare Ponzi going, and eventually they will be the problem not the solution as they reach retirement and want their Ponzi pay out.

+1

This is exactly the problem with politically motivated economic " think tanks" they chop the data up to fit their propaganda.

We really do have to look at the cost impact per head over a lifetime regarding immigration. The deficit we have now is proof it is unsustainable. We can't have unlimited immigration and a welfare state.

Edited by hans kammler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies may, like any human endeavour, have its errors and biases, as evidence it is still streets ahead of the anecdotes and scaremongering propogated by anti-immigration activists. Where are their figures and analyses supporting their contention that EU immigrants are a drain on the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a immigrant to several countries around the world so far. I am highly skilled, have been tested for diseases before being allowed to work, and am able to claim NO health or social security benefits. If I leave my job I MUST leave the country within a short period. I pay tax, of course, but my job would be here anyway and a native, if doing the job, would be paying the same tax.

Even with these sensible controls, I am aware that I am still occupying a home that a native could be living in, taking a job that a native might grow in to, and most of the funds I earn will go overseas and not benefit my host countries. I am using energy and polluting more than a native due to my western lifestyle. When one of my kids was born, I used a local hospital and paid - but occupied a bed a native could have used. In short, I am a parasite.

I am in the top 5% of global immigrants by skill set and income. If I am not an overall benefit, then how the hell can the majority of low skilled, low income people going into the UK be. Studies like the ones quoted above massage the NUMBERS but fail to count all the opportunity cost and non-financial impacts of people like me.

Luckily, I think many people in the UK have now woken up to the fact that mass immigration is bad for the majority of natives. the cries of 'racist' or 'they make you richer' are sounding increasingly shrill and desperate.

Oh, and with zero immigration in the UK over the past 20 years, there is a good chance I would still be in the UK, as housing costs, tax, and overpopulation would be less. So that's another black mark against it.

I am in the same situation and could of wrote that, the last sentence is bang on the money i would sooner not have to travel to utter hell holes and dangerous places to earn a living the only reason im going now is due to inflated housing costs here.

The fact i would be earning a lot more money then the natives tells me the only reason im there is because a native isn't trusted to do the job, the client certainly doesnt enjoy paying me many times more then an Indian/Filipino/local.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies may, like any human endeavour, have its errors and biases, as evidence it is still streets ahead of the anecdotes and scaremongering propogated by anti-immigration activists. Where are their figures and analyses supporting their contention that EU immigrants are a drain on the country?

Will this do?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

If immigrants are making us all better off why are the young of Britain poorer then their parents/grandparents and why have they so little prospects?

Surely with unlimited immigration we all ought to be far better off!

Edited by Corruption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this do?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

If immigrants are making us all better off why are the young of Britain poorer then their parents/grandparents and why have they so little prospects?

Surely with unlimited immigration we all ought to be far better off!

Will this do?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

If immigrants are making us all better off why are the young of Britain poorer then their parents/grandparents and why have they so little prospects?

Surely with unlimited immigration we all ought to be far better off!

To be fair to immigration surely a lot of the problems are because Gordon spent too much and changed the supervision system of the Banks from the best in the world to third rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this do?

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

If immigrants are making us all better off why are the young of Britain poorer then their parents/grandparents and why have they so little prospects?

Surely with unlimited immigration we all ought to be far better off!

No, it doesn't look like a valid criticism:

To summarise, MW’s main criticism is based on a stark misapprehension of our methodology. The report is written in a derogatory language seemingly attempting to undermine our reputation with suggestions that we do not adequately describe our methodology or comment on all our results. We are in fact very open about our methodology - which has been acknowledged even by earlier critics of our work (including Prof M. Stone, cited approvingly in their report, who comments that ‘we set out our assumptions with commendable clarity’ [page 3 here: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/assumptionsandwizardry.pdf]).
Their strongly worded criticism is all the more surprising as the MW report is based on a substantial amount of guesswork, does not provide clear indication of how their figures are computed, and is at times sloppy or simply wrong. For example, the authors must have misread section 2.2.3 of our paper and/or earlier research of ours (Dustmann, 1997; and Dustmann, Fasani and Speciale 2013), as this research never claims that the level of consumption for migrants may be 20% lower than that of the indigenous population. Also, there seem to be calculation mistakes in some of the figures in their tables.

http://www.cream-migration.org/comments.php

If you are still convinced that immigration, rather than the corruption of our political and financial rulers, is main reason why the young of Britain are worse off than their parents, then I can only commend our obedient mass media on their capacity to deceive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.