Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[Zamo 10]

Except thats not balanced is it, because it doesnt mention how much they pay in taxes for the same period.

 

It doesn't need to. Think about it... people in receipt of benefits must be at the low end of the earning/contributing scale. If the lowest contributions were somehow still making a positive contribution then how is it possible that this country has a budget deficit and a huge national debt? It is impossible.

 

The stats that are repeatedly wheeled out to show positive contribution have been manipulate. They only look at the cost of benefits paid directly to immigrants and compare that to contributions made through tax. The indirect benefits associated with defence, the legal system, policing, schools, local government services, welfare, the NHS, borrowing etc, etc, are all excluded. The biggest costs are simple ignored. It is a complete cheat and it is done to deliberately mislead people.

[Berberis 10]

They might be in my emails from a few months ago. It would be time consuming to find now but I can later and copy and paste later?

 

I know you said it because I called you a troll.

 

Try google cache or archive.org. I used it once to show how one member was both a lier and threatened me with violence.

[999tigger 10]

It doesn't need to. Think about it... people in receipt of benefits must be at the low end of the earning/contributing scale. If the lowest contributions were somehow still making a positive contribution then how is it possible that this country has a budget deficit and a huge national debt? It is impossible.

 

The stats that are repeatedly wheeled out to show positive contribution have been manipulate. They only look at the cost of benefits paid directly to immigrants and compare that to contributions made through tax. The indirect benefits associated with defence, the legal system, policing, schools, local government services, welfare, the NHS, borrowing etc, etc, are all excluded. The biggest costs are simple ignored. It is a complete cheat and it is done to deliberately mislead people.

 

The link was to a piece in the express about how 43% of EU national claim benefits over a 5 year period, it seems ridiculous and misleading not to assess what the net benefits to tax contributed sum was, as tax would have them paying for part of their own benefits.

 

Whether we have a huge national debt or not, isnt good proof of whether immigrants are making a positive or negative contribution or not as proprtionally the national debt is much larger and the number of immigrants much smaller than the resident population.

 

I agree that you have to look at the stats carefully and that simply looking at benefits v tax paid can be misleading. I havent looked at the UCL research for a few months. Still not including additional expenses whilst not perfect is not as misleading as ignoring any contribution at all.

[Zamo 10]

Except you are unlikely to see the better educated ones that have the better jobs.

 

You are unlikely to see them because there are less of them!

 

The mass immigration driver is poverty. Most who come here do ordinary work, live in the most affordable areas, shop where it is cheapest and you see them more because there are more.

[999tigger 10]

You are unlikely to see them because there are less of them!

 

The mass immigration driver is poverty. Most who come here do ordinary work, live in the most affordable areas, shop where it is cheapest and you see them more because there are more.

 

Unknown, they are just less visible, which is why its better to look at tax records(notwithstanding the issues you have with that calculation) and overall contribution rather than who you see on the street.

[Berberis 10]

You are unlikely to see them because there are less of them!

 

The mass immigration driver is poverty. Most who come here do ordinary work, live in the most affordable areas, shop where it is cheapest and you see them more because there are more.

 

Zamo, don't forget those that come here for less then a year and so claim back a large proportion of their tax.

[Zamo 10]

The link was to a piece in the express about how 43% of EU national claim benefits over a 5 year period, it seems ridiculous and misleading not to assess what the net benefits to tax contributed sum was, as tax would have them paying for part of their own benefits.

 

You are just arguing over the scale of the negative contribution and the number put on it.

 

Whether we have a huge national debt or not, isnt good proof of whether immigrants are making a positive or negative contribution or not as proprtionally the national debt is much larger and the number of immigrants much smaller than the resident population.

 

It is proof that the lowest earners don't make a positive contribution (we'd otherwise have surplus not debt) and is therefore proof that no immigrant in receipt of benefit is making a positive contribution.

 

I agree that you have to look at the stats carefully

and that simply looking at benefits v tax paid can be misleading. I havent looked at the UCL research for a few months. Still not including additional expenses whilst not perfect is not as misleading as ignoring any contribution at all.

 

The UCL work is disgracefully misleading. The only honest way to assess positive contribution is to divide the Nation's expenditure (after other tax and income receipts are deducted) by the number of adults/families (however you want to proportion it) to give you the 'share'. If a person/family contributes more than their share of the balance owed then it is a positive and if they don't then it is negative. It is dead simple. But UCL don't do it like that because so few people (both immigrant and indigenous) make a positive contribution. If they compared immigrant contribution to 'share' then it would expose the huge negative contribution they actually make. This is obviously not the desired result so they cheat by redefining 'positive contribution' as paying more in than you receive out in direct benefits and services. This excludes huge costs associated with defence, the NHS, welfare, the police, the legal system, prisons, local government services, debt repayment, debt interest, overseas aid etc, etc. They will only add in direct costs, which ignores the fact that all these things are effectively part of a giant national insurance policy and we are all liable to pay the premium regardless of whether we make a claim or use something. We might not directly access a service (when was the last time any of us made direct use of a trident submarine?) but we are all liable for them... including migrants. The stats they produce are disingenuous nonsense.

 

Think on this. This country is running a deficit and has for many years. That means that the British pubic cohort is making a net negative financial contribution. Given the many advantages we have over immigrants (education, culture experience, language, money etc) do you really believe that it is possible for them to be doing better than the indigenous population? What does common sense tell you? What do your eyes tell you?

[gomgeg 10]

It doesn't need to. Think about it... people in receipt of benefits must be at the low end of the earning/contributing scale. If the lowest contributions were somehow still making a positive contribution then how is it possible that this country has a budget deficit and a huge national debt? It is impossible.

 

The stats that are repeatedly wheeled out to show positive contribution have been manipulate. They only look at the cost of benefits paid directly to immigrants and compare that to contributions made through tax. The indirect benefits associated with defence, the legal system, policing, schools, local government services, welfare, the NHS, borrowing etc, etc, are all excluded. The biggest costs are simple ignored. It is a complete cheat and it is done to deliberately mislead people.

Spot on, according to David Cameron, 40 percent of immigrants are on work related benefits averaging £6K, add on all those other things ie £6K per year for for each child in education. Mind you it's also fairly obvious that Cameron's heart is not in this renegotiation, last week he said negotiations were going well, then on the same news two EU prime ministers were asked about it and said,

'What negotiations? He hasn't told us what he wants yet.'

[999tigger 10]

You are just arguing over the scale of the negative contribution and the number put on it.

 

No im saying its more misleading to only look at the benefits drawn and not take into account the taxes paid.

 

 

It is proof that the lowest earners don't make a positive contribution (we'd otherwise have surplus not debt) and is therefore proof that no immigrant in receipt of benefit is making a positive contribution.

 

Again the studies about the immigration impact as a whole would seem fairer to me rather than say well those without jobs dont contribute whilst ignoring those who do.

 

 

I understand what you are saying about comparing benefits v taxes contributed. Id have to read the research again to understand their explanation and their methodology for calculation.

[Zamo 10]

Unknown, they are just less visible, which is why its better to look at tax records(notwithstanding the issues you have with that calculation) and overall contribution rather than who you see on the street.

 

If I went to a poor area of town then I could quickly count to a hundred the number of immigrants I see. If I go to a rich area then I could be there all day and not count 100. That is because there are more in the poor area than the rich area. What else would be causing the lack of visibility?

 

If we go back 10-15 years we were constantly lied to about immigration levels. Counts weren't properly kept and the level of illegal immigration ignored entirely. People could see the changes happening before their eyes but these were dismissed as the hallucinations of racists. And then the truth came out. Once bitten twice shy and all that... I'l stick to trusting my own eyes and common sense.

[999tigger 10]

If I went to a poor area of town then I could quickly count to a hundred the number of immigrants I see. If I go to a rich area then I could be there all day and not count 100. That is because there are more in the poor area than the rich area. What else would be causing the lack of visibility?

 

If we go back 10-15 years we were constantly lied to about immigration levels. Counts weren't properly kept and the level of illegal immigration ignored entirely. People could see the changes happening before their eyes but these were dismissed as the hallucinations of racists. And then the truth came out. Once bitten twice shy and all that... I'l stick to trusting my own eyes and common sense.

 

Because you wouldnt see the ones who werent there at the time you visited and who were in fact working, which undermines the whole thing. How would you differentiate the ones who are asylum seekers who are not allowed to work from those who were from the EU?

 

All you get to establish is that from a site visit youve seen more people who you believe are immigrants than people in a rich area.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 18:18 ----------

 

Having had a look at the research it appears they dont just do a straight simple calculation of benefits v tax income, but also take into account and allocate a cost to the use of services.

[RonJeremy 10]

It's a total stitch up. Open your eyes.

I haven't seen the methodology but I would wager that a child born to a recent immigrant is not counted as an immigrant. But to all intents purposes and financial drain on the economy, they are.