The Times article - Areas where EU citizens are six times higher than estimated

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, IMHAL said:

Here is some research that gives a definate figure - took my about 20 seconds to find.

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba

"European migrants living in the UK contribute £2,300 more to public purse each year than the average adult, suggesting a net contribution of £78,000 to the exchequer over their lifespan in the UK."

 

Bump for #iamnumerate. Don't like to lose track of the main discussion point due to the answer not being on Brexit message...

 

[Insane]

39 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Ok, I want to ask you two a question.

You seem so convinced by your own arguments but yet you have not bothered to actually fact check them. How do you arrive at something you're so convinced about, and yet when prompted, you can't even source or present how you arrived at your conclusion? Surely you were taught better at school? Surely some form of critical thinking must apply rather than just having your puppet strings tugged?

Here:

Puppet strings tugged LOL love it. You need to go back and read the whole thread to understand. 

I answered a post who said rents had risen only in line with inflation while house prices outstripped inflation. His angle was that the 6 million who arrived here had not increased rents above inflation so they had no impact on the increased cost of buying. Are you able to understand that ? Is it so far straight forward enough for you ? Are you keeping up? 

Well my argument or point as I don't see it as arguing is that an asset yielding a return in line with inflation led to more people willing to invest in that asset . Which in turn led to more and more people willing to compete to buy the assets.

Hence the high immigration led to the higher demand to rent which led to more people buying to rent out which led to  higher prices to buy. The rents did not go up above inflation as the amount of property for them to rent increased with increased demand. The 6 million extra people do not actually need to be buying to have an impact on the prices to buy they only need to create the demand to rent for those that feed that demand to go out and pay higher prices to buy. 

I have told you how I arrived at the conclusion I took his point on board Is that ok with you ? Believe it or not people do accept some things that are told to them we were told things at school and were expected to accept them not go and fact check everything 

 

[debtlessmanc]

6 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Bump for #iamnumerate. Don't like to lose track of the main discussion point due to the answer not being on Brexit message...

 

look at that report, already by figure 3, we are presented with data that we now know is based on totally, incredibly, wrong statistics. The whole thing is compromised completely. Needs rewriting.

[IMHAL]

8 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

look at that report, already by figure 3, we are presented with data that we now know is based on totally, incredibly, wrong statistics. The whole thing is compromised completely. Needs rewriting.

Would you care to elaborate as to what significant inputs/assumptions are wrong, how this will impact on the final answers and hence why you think it should be rewritten.

Edited April 20, 2021 by IMHAL

[debtlessmanc]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Would you care to elaborate as to what significant inputs/assumptions are wrong and why you think it should be rewritten.

It goes in depth into the age distribution and place of origin of migrants, these are used as inputs. The link to the migration observsatory report shows clearly that at the time of this report the govt underestimated inward migration from the EU by 73% and that this was not evenly distributed across age ranges and country of origin. Reports such as this based on the old data need recalculating completely. with the costs to infrastructure to take the added population factored in as well.

Edited April 20, 2021 by debtlessmanc

[Riedquat]

17 minutes ago, Insane said:

Puppet strings tugged LOL love it. You need to go back and read the whole thread to understand.

Yeah, got to laugh at that when it comes from someone who reliably starts frothing at the mouth and flinging out slurs every time someone has the nerve to not cheer on constant mass immigration.

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, debtlessmanc said:

It goes in depth into the age distribution and place of origin of migrants, these are used as inputs. The link to the migration observsatory report shows clearly that at the time of this report the govt underestimated inward migration from the EU by 73% and that this was not evenly distributed across age ranges and country of origin. Reports such as this based on the old data need recalculating completely. with the costs to infrastructure to take the added population factored in as well.

I would doubt that any of those points would significantly change the finding. Having a larger sample size would have no effect on a per capita basis. The age distribution would alter the results, but I doubt that the age range would have changed significantly for it matter all that much. 

I don't know if they have updated the report, if they have not then I would assume that the updated data has had no significant effect to warrant re-publishing the report.

You can provide an alternative report if you like...I am sure that your buddies at the Manchester University economics dept would have the info.  Looking forward to it.

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Yeah, got to laugh at that when it comes from someone who reliably starts frothing at the mouth and flinging out slurs every time someone has the nerve to not cheer on constant mass immigration.

+1

[debtlessmanc]

2 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I would doubt that any of those points would significantly change the finding. Having a larger sample size would have no effect on a per capita basis. The age distribution would alter the results, but I doubt that the age range would have changed significantly for it matter all that much. 

I don't know if they have updated the report, if they have not then I would assume that the updated data has had no significant effect to warrant re-publishing the report.

You can provide an alternative report if you like...I am sure that your buddies at the Manchester University economics dept would have the info.  Looking forward to it.

https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/local-council/sadiq-khan-calls-eu-settlement-scheme-a-failure-as-stats-3829704

 

from the report

 

"They also report only two per cent of over 65s and 18pc of under 18s have registered."

they are the ones who cost the state money...

[IMHAL]

9 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/local-council/sadiq-khan-calls-eu-settlement-scheme-a-failure-as-stats-3829704

 

from the report

 

"They also report only two per cent of over 65s and 18pc of under 18s have registered."

they are the ones who cost the state money...

You are quoting stats about people registering for settled status in London..which is different and nothing to do with the assumptions used in the Oxford report..which was written pre Brexit

And anyway...if so few have registered for settled status then it implies that a much greater number in that costly age range are not going to be resident and therefore the per capita costs will come down and the net contribution will go up. It makes the case for immigrants even better.

Waiting patiently for an alternative report from Professor Manc.

Edited April 20, 2021 by IMHAL

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

Bump for #iamnumerate. Don't like to lose track of the main discussion point due to the answer not being on Brexit message...

 

Thanks for that

That report says

Quote

In 2016/17, the average adult migrant from the European Economic Area (EEA) contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances than the average adult currently living in the UK

Surely the comparison should be due to age?  There are very few Romanian pensioners in the UK so it is not comparing like with like.

They even say in the report that migrants have different age profile and make no allowance for age

Quote

On the one hand, migrants have a younger age profile, especially so for NMS migrants, meaning they impose fewer costs on the healthcare system themselves. But they also have more dependent children per adult, and children are estimated to have higher healthcare costs than young adults.

What I want to see is how the average migrant of the same age compares.  Is that really so difficult to understand?  

I do believe the populations with very few pensioners contribute more than populations with lots.

Edited April 20, 2021 by iamnumerate

[dugsbody]

39 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Yeah, got to laugh at that when it comes from someone who reliably starts frothing at the mouth and flinging out slurs every time someone has the nerve to not cheer on constant mass immigration.

I remain unemotional about this stuff. If people want to take offence to someone challenging their views, then they don't belong on the internet or in any form of education for that matter. They should find an echo chamber where they can rage and hype each other up to their hearts desire. If you don't like the way I phrase things, so ******ing what? I'm not here to make friends and sing songs in a circle. Grow up a little.

@Insane

@iamnumerate

I was answering your direct point questioning the rent increases. Rent increases reflect unleveraged demand for housing. Hence they have risen broadly in line with historic expectations with the odd peak and trough. House prices on the other hand have exploded. Globally. 

Immigration obviously has an impact on rents and house prices, but you notice it far less if house prices were not leveraged. Hence why people can now afford to rent in so many areas where they can no longer afford to buy (meeting the mortgage requirements).

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by dugsbody

[14stFlyer]

4 hours ago, IMHAL said:

 

4 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Perhaps this was because EE numbers were underestimated and non-EU migration overestimated?  
 

As with any modelling, rubbish in, rubbish out. 

Expand  

As usual with leavers they take the models they agree with and dismiss any that do not align with their core belief...immigrants must be bad or the evidence and research is wrong. Typical.

 

Sigh. I am not a leaver. Far from it 

 

[sPinwheel]

On 13/03/2021 at 08:01, 24gray24 said:

And they're still letting them in. 

The issue that caused brexit hasn't gone away...

And it never will. The Tories, despite what they say, love immigration. Actions, not words, count.

[kzb]

2 hours ago, IMHAL said:

Would you care to elaborate as to what significant inputs/assumptions are wrong, how this will impact on the final answers and hence why you think it should be rewritten.

 

We used the LFS as the basis for our assessment. The LFS is a quarterly survey of individuals and households, run by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It is calibrated to the census, and forms the basis of numerous official labour market figures, such as the unemployment rate. The survey captures detailed information on around 90,000 individuals each quarter. It includes information on earnings levels, which enabled us to estimate income tax payments, and age and number of children, which could be used in estimating health and education expenditure. It also provides other valuable details such as country of birth, which we used to compare the characteristics of migrants and natives.

[EDIT]

We also used other data sources to fill in the LFS’s gaps. For example, while it contains information on employee earnings and identifies whether a person is self-employed or receives benefits, it does not specify how much. We therefore also drew on the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Family Resources Survey (FRS)––an annual household survey targeting around 24,000 private households––for additional information on benefits payments and self-employment income. In addition, we drew on various other sources, including HMRC estimates from the Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) and the ONS Wealth and Assets Survey to estimate individual income from investment.

In other words, it is not based on hard numbers.  Neither were the immigration statistics, they were also based on surveys and have been found to correspond very poorly to reality.

What if the same people not telling the whole truth on the immigration survey, go on to be economical about the truth in the other surveys?  Or more likely simply decline to take part?  How many of the 24,000 households were immigrant households anyway?

 

[kzb]

2 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

It goes in depth into the age distribution and place of origin of migrants, these are used as inputs. The link to the migration observsatory report shows clearly that at the time of this report the govt underestimated inward migration from the EU by 73% and that this was not evenly distributed across age ranges and country of origin. Reports such as this based on the old data need recalculating completely. with the costs to infrastructure to take the added population factored in as well.

Agreed.  Connected to that point did you see this in Box 2:

Housing development 0.7%

Only 0.7% of total expenditure is allocated per individual.  This is the average across the whole population.

So they are moving people into areas which are already full and housing is in shortage.  There is no substantial reserve of empty housing for them to move into.  Yet their housing development cost is only 0.7%.

This is garbage, because each new household needs a new housing unit.  A full one, not 0.7% of one.

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Thanks for that

That report says

Surely the comparison should be due to age?  There are very few Romanian pensioners in the UK so it is not comparing like with like.

They even say in the report that migrants have different age profile and make no allowance for age

What I want to see is how the average migrant of the same age compares.  Is that really so difficult to understand?  

I do believe the populations with very few pensioners contribute more than populations with lots.

I have read the summary but not the entire report. I very much doubt that Oxford economics has allowed the result to be skewed in the way you have alluded to (presumably without reading the report). I also doubt that the many other agencies made that mistake either. 

Why don't you read the report and prove to me where you have concluded that the result has been skewed in this way. It's the least you can do considering I provided you the link in the first place (after you had been tons or research and failed to find anything).

[IMHAL]

43 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

We used the LFS as the basis for our assessment. The LFS is a quarterly survey of individuals and households, run by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It is calibrated to the census, and forms the basis of numerous official labour market figures, such as the unemployment rate. The survey captures detailed information on around 90,000 individuals each quarter. It includes information on earnings levels, which enabled us to estimate income tax payments, and age and number of children, which could be used in estimating health and education expenditure. It also provides other valuable details such as country of birth, which we used to compare the characteristics of migrants and natives.

[EDIT]

We also used other data sources to fill in the LFS’s gaps. For example, while it contains information on employee earnings and identifies whether a person is self-employed or receives benefits, it does not specify how much. We therefore also drew on the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Family Resources Survey (FRS)––an annual household survey targeting around 24,000 private households––for additional information on benefits payments and self-employment income. In addition, we drew on various other sources, including HMRC estimates from the Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) and the ONS Wealth and Assets Survey to estimate individual income from investment.

In other words, it is not based on hard numbers.  Neither were the immigration statistics, they were also based on surveys and have been found to correspond very poorly to reality.

What if the same people not telling the whole truth on the immigration survey, go on to be economical about the truth in the other surveys?  Or more likely simply decline to take part?  How many of the 24,000 households were immigrant households anyway?

 

Oxford economics used a variety of hard data sources and a good survey. I see nothing wrong with their methodology.

As for housing development costs. 0.7% I assume is the per annum yearly cost which would make sense. A house last quite a long time you know. It's not outrageous for it to last for over 100 years is it.

With 24,00 sample size you would expect them to capture a representative sample of immigrants.....counsidering that you and your brother thing they lurk under every leaf.

Edited April 20, 2021 by IMHAL

[iamnumerate]

3 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I have read the summary but not the entire report. I very much doubt that Oxford economics has allowed the result to be skewed in the way you have alluded to (presumably without reading the report). I also doubt that the many other agencies made that mistake either. 

Why don't you read the report and prove to me where you have concluded that the result has been skewed in this way. It's the least you can do considering I provided you the link in the first place (after you had been tons or research and failed to find anything).

I have read some of the report and it says that the age profiles are different.

For example

Quote

The difference in expenditure per accountable adult is once again a reflection of the fact that migrants are younger, with more children.

And

Quote

We estimate that natives contribute more in other taxes, such as capital gains and inheritance tax, primarily because they tend to be older and are therefore assumed to be wealthier.

Scarily despite being younger non EEA migrants pay less than Brits

 

 

 

[sPinwheel]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

I have read some of the report and it says that the age profiles are different.

For example

And

Scarily despite being younger non EEA migrants pay less than Brits

 

 

 

Thank god the points based immigration policy post Brexit is going to reduce non EEA migrants...

[kzb]

7 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Oxford economics used a variety of hard data sources and a good survey. I see nothing wrong with their methodology.

As for housing development costs. 0.7% I assume is the per annum yearly cost which would make sense. A house last quite a long time you know. It's not outrageous for it to last for over 100 years is it.

With 24,00 sample size you would expect them to capture a representative sample of immigrants.....counsidering that you and your brother thing they lurk under every leaf.

But the wrong immigration stats were also survey-based.   I'd say we should assume only a similar level of accuracy with the subsequent survey data.

I'm not fully sure what that housing development cost actually covers.  But to assume this cost for a new immigrant is 0.7% is a bit surprising.  They need housing immediately after stepping off the plane, not at the end of their lives.

There's two problems with the survey,

one, the limited sample size means a large Poisson uncertainty on each sub-set.  For example 427,000 Romanians (in 2019) out of population of 67m is 0.63%.  0.63% of 24,000 is 151.  Then let's say 10% claim a certain benefit, that is a central expectation of just 15.  The Poisson uncertainty on that is roughly 50% at 95% confidence.  Admittedly this will reduce as classes are lumped together because of higher numbers.

The other is simply that people can decline to participate, and the declination rate will be negatively correlated with the income and positively correlated with benefits.  Tied on.

 

[Insane]

2 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Immigration obviously has an impact on rents and house prices, but you notice it far less if house prices were not leveraged. Hence why people can now afford to rent in so many areas where they can no longer afford to buy (meeting the mortgage requirements).

6 million more people in the UK is the foundation of rising house and prices and keeps rents rising with inflation. 

[sPinwheel]

7 minutes ago, Insane said:

6 million more people in the UK is the foundation of rising house and prices and keeps rents rising with inflation. 

So I assume house prices went down since 1.3 million have left last year?

[IMHAL]

44 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I have read some of the report and it says that the age profiles are different.

For example

And

Scarily despite being younger non EEA migrants pay less than Brits

 

 

 

Your point was about pensioners skewing the result. I did not pick thup and neither have you it seems. Bed wetting over imaginary problems with the report are you. 

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

So I assume house prices went down since 1.3 million have left last year?

Did I say it was the only reason ? The fall out and impact on Property will be clearer to see once the stamp duty holiday is over and the panic buying settles down.