Eu Immigrants Contribute £20Bn To Uk Economy

[bankstersparadise]

i was taking to a friend recently about summer jobs for graduates, i worked every summer as did most of my generation. Now they don't do them anymore the jobs don't exist as bar work etc is always done by immigrants. apart from anything else our young people get their first taste of employment at 22 with hopeless expectations

These says if a university student is working in a bar during their summers then they are going on the heap at graduation anyway. University degree plus real and relevant work experience is the only thing that will get you into a career that gives you a 5% chance of ever being able to pay down your student debt and afford shelter for a family.

[awaytogo]

I'm sure the slave trade was good for our economy. Didn't make it right though did it?

There are things more important than money.

Like democracy and living in a free sovereign country.

Yes what i would like to know if it is is true WHERE has the money gone, also the fact that a a big chunk of the money they do earn goes abroad so thats not doing our economy any good at all, they are heavy smokers compared with the natives and import cigarettes to avoid paying tax,

[billybong]

Some of the money is going as part of the £ billions of contributions paid to the eu - recently increased. So in a way the UK is partly funding its own congestion.

Edited November 6, 2014 by billybong

[davidg]

The article is the usual Guardian click bait.

The report doesn't include

1) housing benefit - main part of govt benefit bill

2) School places

3) NHS costs

4) increase in cost of housing/rent

5) benefits paid to residents who are displaced from jobs

6) doesn't include tax credits (if people remember there was widespread denial that EU immigrants could even get tax credits as Farage claimed).

7) The data source is based on a self-reported survey so there is poor confidence in the data going in (gigo).

[billybong]

The links below link to the report

http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.2014.124.issue-580/issuetoc

http://

www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

The first paragraph of the report's conclusion says

Although the fiscal contribution of immigrants has emerged as a key issue of concern in the public debate on immigration, very little evidence is yet available that allows assessment of how much immigrants take out of and contribute to the public purse. This study attempts to fill this void by suggesting a simple methodology that answers the focal policy questions by identifying the conceptual and methodological difficulties these issues present and offering implementable solutions. We then apply this methodology specifically to the UK, a country in which this debate has been particularly fierce over recent years.

Fierce?

Don't they mean stifled.

Edited November 6, 2014 by billybong

[Riedquat]

So what if they have? Given the choice between more people and more money in the economy and fewer people and less money in the economy give me the latter.

Even if for some crazy reason economics are the only thing that matters to you (quite why that should be so I've never grasped) an overall increase but no increase per capita is no gain at all. What's the increase per capita, ideally allowing for whatever economic fluctuations would've happened anyway?

[iamnumerate]

The economic facts have long shown for anyone that wants to see that immigrants are a net fiscal benefit rather than a cost, and that immigration is a net positive for wages and economic growth. So, it doesn't take a genius to see that something else is at play here when it comes to people opposing immigration. If people are xenophobic and don't like being around large immigrant communities, it's rational for them to oppose immigration. Presumably such people range from out and out racists to people with (possibly mild) preference for interacting with others who share the same cultural norms as them. I really can't see what else can be at the root of opposition of immigration. After all if you are worried about more people in this country being a burden on public services etc. you should oppose indigenous child birth (above replacement rate, in any case). I suspect few kippers object to nice middle class white people having large families.

Did you know that the researchers were funded by the EU? I am sure tobacco companies in the past managed to fund researchers who found smoking is safe. Also these researchers have a history of being incompetent they said that very few Poles would come here in 2004 and worst of all they look at the same data last year and came out with different figures http://www.eureferendum.com- who knows what they say in another year.

BTW the indigenous birth rate is below replacement rate so what does it matter if some people have large families if the average is below replacement rate?

[iamnumerate]

So what if they have? Given the choice between more people and more money in the economy and fewer people and less money in the economy give me the latter.

Even if for some crazy reason economics are the only thing that matters to you (quite why that should be so I've never grasped) an overall increase but no increase per capita is no gain at all. What's the increase per capita, ideally allowing for whatever economic fluctuations would've happened anyway?

Politicians like being in charge of a bigger economy -even if the people in it are poorer.

[@contradevian]

Had a protracted Twitter spat with JD Portes this morning.

The EU shill is not for turning!

Sure these are EU grads are contributing, but they have displaced many a Brit. I live in a Northern town and local business is chock full with foreign national grads on NMW (the displacement is not just potato pickers in Thetford by any means).

Sure, great who gets these gains? Business owners and rentiers.

Its all great if we want to live in a gangmaster HMO, in order to compete. I don't so they can all feck off, including LibLabConUKIP. Hell would freeze over before I even contemplated voting again.

[Riedquat]

Politicians like being in charge of a bigger economy -even if the people in it are poorer.

True enough.

In terms of numbers how would immigration benefit? I'm not aware of any particularly good correlation between the size of a country's population and the wealth of an average individual in it. You can probably get around that a bit by importing fully qualified and readily useful people, so that you've got skills without having to have paid for them to be developed but that's short-termist (they'll have kids sooner or later meaning more people to be paid to bring up) and parasitic from whatever country they came from.

An earlier poster asked "why else would you be against immigration?", implying that the only reason (to a greater or lesser extend) is xenophobia. How short-sighted. For me it's all about numbers. Some people don't have a problem with more numbers, being quite happy to live in a busy world. Others hate that and easily notice the difference in population density between, say, England and France (or even Cornwall and Kent), despite the vast majority of both places not having people or buildings on them. It makes a big difference to the quality of life for many, much more so than the economic differences being discussed. Just being able to support them all doesn't make it desirable. The UK would be a much more pleasant place to live if it had a lot fewer people in it. We can't do anything about that (ethically at any rate) but we can and should stop the increase, whatever the economics of doing so.

[Starla]

I'll take a look at it. Last time I read a similar report, while its true (and outside EU immigrants too, provided they werent from Islamic countries) they contribute (marginally) more in taxes, than the take in subsidies, it conveniently ignored people of above working age.

So, fine...if they dont expect any state pensions.

On the pensions point, someone earning an average of 25k pa, over a 40 year working life, pays £5045pa in tax and NI x 40 = £201k. Proposed flat rate State pension £144pw/£7,500pa. If they draw a pension for longer than 27 years, then they've already spent their own tax/ni contribution soley on that. It doesn't add up under normal circumstances, never mind minimum wage earners, unemployed on benefits, people with short working spans. It's a pointless caculation anyway, as there won't be a state pension, unless there's another magic money tree I'm not aware of.

[iamnumerate]

True enough.

In terms of numbers how would immigration benefit? I'm not aware of any particularly good correlation between the size of a country's population and the wealth of an average individual in it. You can probably get around that a bit by importing fully qualified and readily useful people, so that you've got skills without having to have paid for them to be developed but that's short-termist (they'll have kids sooner or later meaning more people to be paid to bring up) and parasitic from whatever country they came from.

An earlier poster asked "why else would you be against immigration?", implying that the only reason (to a greater or lesser extend) is xenophobia. How short-sighted. For me it's all about numbers. Some people don't have a problem with more numbers, being quite happy to live in a busy world. Others hate that and easily notice the difference in population density between, say, England and France (or even Cornwall and Kent), despite the vast majority of both places not having people or buildings on them. It makes a big difference to the quality of life for many, much more so than the economic differences being discussed. Just being able to support them all doesn't make it desirable. The UK would be a much more pleasant place to live if it had a lot fewer people in it. We can't do anything about that (ethically at any rate) but we can and should stop the increase, whatever the economics of doing so.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However politicians like immigration because

a) being in charge of x million plus 2 million is better for their ego

a lot of them have BTL properties

c)They are loved by some of the immigrants they let in

d)They are psychopaths and don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

BTW I think you are right about the UK population, if we had the same density of population of France this country would be a lot nicer place to live.

[gf3]

Out of idle curiosity at what point would you regard this island full?

I would say we must have enough land to grow our own food and biomass for our needs. Only a fool thinks that oil will last forever

[Riedquat]

I would say we must have enough land to grow our own food and biomass for our needs. Only a fool thinks that oil will last forever

I'd say we're full before that point (which is probably already quite a bit less than we've got). You can have high intensity agriculture over as much land as possible, get rid of every bit of woodland that isn't growing commercial timber and so on and support more people that way but again you've made the place much less attractive to live in and hence lowered quality of life. So meaningfully "full" is before you need even current levels of agricultural intensity IMO.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However politicians like immigration because

a) being in charge of x million plus 2 million is better for their ego

a lot of them have BTL properties

c)They are loved by some of the immigrants they let in

d)They are psychopaths and don't live in the same world as the rest of us.

BTW I think you are right about the UK population, if we had the same density of population of France this country would be a lot nicer place to live.

Maybe they view it like a large scale game of Sim City, including releasing the odd disaster when they get bored.

[Will!]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29912945

Robert Peston posts a follow up

They estimate that between 1995 and 2011, all immigrants to the UK - from outside the European Union and inside - were a net drain on public resources of between £114bn and £31bn, depending on whether a proportionate share of all public spending is allocated to them, or only a share of the public services whose costs increase as the population rises.

Strikingly Dustmann and Frattini show that all the net costs are generated by emigres from outside the European Union.

[richc]

Had a protracted Twitter spat with JD Portes this morning.

The EU shill is not for turning!

Sure these are EU grads are contributing, but they have displaced many a Brit. I live in a Northern town and local business is chock full with foreign national grads on NMW (the displacement is not just potato pickers in Thetford by any means).

Sure, great who gets these gains? Business owners and rentiers.

Its all great if we want to live in a gangmaster HMO, in order to compete. I don't so they can all feck off, including LibLabConUKIP. Hell would freeze over before I even contemplated voting again.

Portes is an American (with a British passport). As an American living in the UK (with a British passport), I find it mind-boggling that he's been allowed to have the influence over the UK's future that he has been given -- i.e. doing the economic analysis for Britain's immigration policy during the Blair years.

[Steppenpig]

I would say we must have enough land to grow our own food and biomass for our needs.

And then half it (at least), so the rest can be turned over to wilderness and wild animals.

[richc]

Dig a little deeper and you find the author of the report is Christian Dustmann. This is more left wing propaganda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822825/Expert-migrant-report-man-said-just-13-000-come-Eastern-Europe.html

http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/11227

The BBC was talking about this report and mentioned that the author was Christian Dustmann -- that's all you really need to know. Dustmann is affiliated with UCL, but his research institute is paid for by the EU. This is nothing but propaganda.

The EU has no business paying academics to write up "research" like this in an effort to influence national policy, claiming that it's truly independent academic research. If the EU wants to publish research, then they should be upfront about saying that they're the ones paying for it (or at least commissioning it, because they don't actually pay for anything themselves).

All that this report shows is that recent EU migrants have generally been of working age, and that single working age people tend to have more of a positive fiscal impact than non-working age people. The thing with people, though, is that they get older, and then, when they're having children or are no longer working age, they have a negative fiscal impact. Dustmann is completely aware of this, which is why he cherry picks the time range in the study to look at current and recent historical impact only, because that will give him the conclusion that he knows that the people who pay his salary are looking for. You could repeat this study in ten years time from now, and it will clearly show that Eastern European migrants, some of whom would then be collecting pensions, are a net fiscal drag. Wages for A8 migrants are about half that of native Brits. However well educated and hard working A8 migrants in the UK might be, there's almost no way possible that they will have a positive overall lifetime impact given that their wages are so low.

[Steppenpig]

Wow, 10 hours since I first read about this, yet no mention here.

Last year it was apperently 25 billion, but probably safest not to read to much into it.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

[edit] so even if you believe their methodology, it's erratic, unreliable or deteriorating.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Steppenpig

[richc]

The economic facts have long shown for anyone that wants to see that immigrants are a net fiscal benefit rather than a cost, and that immigration is a net positive for wages and economic growth. So, it doesn't take a genius to see that something else is at play here when it comes to people opposing immigration. If people are xenophobic and don't like being around large immigrant communities, it's rational for them to oppose immigration. Presumably such people range from out and out racists to people with (possibly mild) preference for interacting with others who share the same cultural norms as them. I really can't see what else can be at the root of opposition of immigration. After all if you are worried about more people in this country being a burden on public services etc. you should oppose indigenous child birth (above replacement rate, in any case). I suspect few kippers object to nice middle class white people having large families.

The "economic facts" do not show that immigration is a net fiscal benefit. Here's the most recent comprehensive internationally-comparative study published on the issue. It was written by the OECD last year.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2013/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-oecd-countries_migr_outlook-2013-6-en

They conclude that immigration has mixed effects, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. High-wage, working-age migrants in countries such as Luxembourg and Switzerland tend to have positive net fiscal impacts. Low wage migrants in places such as Germany, France and the UK tend to be a fiscal drag over time.

I might not be a genius, but I do sense that there's something else at play when it comes to people arguing for the level and types of immigration that the UK has recently experienced, most of which, if you read the OECD report, will likely result in poor outcomes in due time as it consists of low-wage immigration that will not have create an enough of a fiscal surplus once those migrant workers start to retire and collect pensions.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

The author of the report in question is the same person who drastically underestimated the number of people who ended up entering the UK from Eastern Europe

UCL, the institution where the author is employed, receives generous financial grants from the EU

All in all, a load of old flannel

[pig]

True enough.

In terms of numbers how would immigration benefit? I'm not aware of any particularly good correlation between the size of a country's population and the wealth of an average individual in it. You can probably get around that a bit by importing fully qualified and readily useful people, so that you've got skills without having to have paid for them to be developed but that's short-termist (they'll have kids sooner or later meaning more people to be paid to bring up) and parasitic from whatever country they came from.

An earlier poster asked "why else would you be against immigration?", implying that the only reason (to a greater or lesser extend) is xenophobia. How short-sighted. For me it's all about numbers. Some people don't have a problem with more numbers, being quite happy to live in a busy world. Others hate that and easily notice the difference in population density between, say, England and France (or even Cornwall and Kent), despite the vast majority of both places not having people or buildings on them. It makes a big difference to the quality of life for many, much more so than the economic differences being discussed. Just being able to support them all doesn't make it desirable. The UK would be a much more pleasant place to live if it had a lot fewer people in it. We can't do anything about that (ethically at any rate) but we can and should stop the increase, whatever the economics of doing so.

Its also just a condition of getting older and turning into a version of Victor Meldrew.

[awaytogo]

The BBC was talking about this report and mentioned that the author was Christian Dustmann -- that's all you really need to know. Dustmann is affiliated with UCL, but his research institute is paid for by the EU. This is nothing but propaganda.

The EU has no business paying academics to write up "research" like this in an effort to influence national policy, claiming that it's truly independent academic research. If the EU wants to publish research, then they should be upfront about saying that they're the ones paying for it (or at least commissioning it, because they don't actually pay for anything themselves).

All that this report shows is that recent EU migrants have generally been of working age, and that single working age people tend to have more of a positive fiscal impact than non-working age people. The thing with people, though, is that they get older, and then, when they're having children or are no longer working age, they have a negative fiscal impact. Dustmann is completely aware of this, which is why he cherry picks the time range in the study to look at current and recent historical impact only, because that will give him the conclusion that he knows that the people who pay his salary are looking for. You could repeat this study in ten years time from now, and it will clearly show that Eastern European migrants, some of whom would then be collecting pensions, are a net fiscal drag. Wages for A8 migrants are about half that of native Brits. However well educated and hard working A8 migrants in the UK might be, there's almost no way possible that they will have a positive overall lifetime impact given that their wages are so low.

Is he not the same Guy who said there there will be only a few thousand coming to this country to work!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822825/Expert-migrant-report-man-said-just-13-000-come-Eastern-Europe.html

[SarahBell]

Last night's HIGNFY did a top trumps immigrants...
Pointing out that they're better educated than the natives.
It was only when Ian Hislop worked out his card (Natives) average age would actually be a lot higher than the immigrants that maybe it started to twig on the TV that it's a mad comparison to start doing without explaining the differences in figures properly.

And how much HB do immigrants get? And anything else not included in the comparison?

[campervanman]

The "economic facts" do not show that immigration is a net fiscal benefit. Here's the most recent comprehensive internationally-comparative study published on the issue. It was written by the OECD last year.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2013/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-oecd-countries_migr_outlook-2013-6-en

They conclude that immigration has mixed effects, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. High-wage, working-age migrants in countries such as Luxembourg and Switzerland tend to have positive net fiscal impacts. Low wage migrants in places such as Germany, France and the UK tend to be a fiscal drag over time.

I might not be a genius, but I do sense that there's something else at play when it comes to people arguing for the level and types of immigration that the UK has recently experienced, most of which, if you read the OECD report, will likely result in poor outcomes in due time as it consists of low-wage immigration that will not have create an enough of a fiscal surplus once those migrant workers start to retire and collect pensions.

What makes you think that EU migrants would want to hang around in the UK after they retire? EU rules mean that for most they would receive far better pensions in their country of origin as well as the more obvious stuff like better weather and lifestyle.

Either way, the UK would only pay a proportion of the pension based upon contributions/35 years with the other country lived and worked in paying the rest.

Edited November 8, 2014 by campervanman