Recent Immigrants make "net contribution" to finances

[mafya 248]

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.

 

my bold=

What about th rich immigrants then? Not all immigrants are poor and claiming benefits you know.

[RonJeremy 10]

my bold=

What about th rich immigrants then? Not all immigrants are poor and claiming benefits you know.

 

What like Roman Abramovich? I'll wager he is counted in the positive stats and he'll skew the figures massively in favour of the deniers.

[999tigger 10]

What like Roman Abramovich? I'll wager he is counted in the positive stats and he'll skew the figures massively in favour of the deniers.

 

What is it people are denying?

 

I'm basing it on the UCL analysis and the study called the Fiscal Effects of Immigration, which was publsihed by the Royal Economics Society in the Economic Journal 2014.

 

Zamo did point out a potential flaw, but then looking at the methodology the cost of services was taken into account and they explain how they did it.

[chalga 10]

What is it people are denying?

 

I'm basing it on the UCL analysis and the study called the Fiscal Effects of Immigration, which was publsihed by the Royal Economics Society in the Economic Journal 2014.

 

Zamo did point out a potential flaw, but then looking at the methodology the cost of services was taken into account and they explain how they did it.

 

Yep,he believes his eyes when he is looking at immigrants and the areas they are in,but not when he is looking at reports which disagree with him,even when they are including stuff in them like cost of services that his eyes don't appear to see.

[RonJeremy 10]

Yep,he believes his eyes when he is looking at immigrants and the areas they are in,but not when he is looking at reports which disagree with him,even when they are including stuff in them like cost of services that his eyes don't appear to see.

 

You are so blinkered. There's none so blind as those who won't see.

[999tigger 10]

You are so blinkered. There's none so blind as those who won't see.

 

Have you read the study? Walking around and using your own eyes is a very unreliable method of assessing who are and are not immigrants, which ones are from the EU and which ones are asylum seekers. You will also miss out on people who tiy do not see, but are likley to be a significant number of people. Without knowing how many people are in the group selected you will never know if the people you see in the park constitute many or just a small fraction of those in the pool. In this case EU immigrants.

 

What are people denying?

[RickyM 10]

I just feel and see that we are losing our country. The stats prove it.

[999tigger 10]

I just feel and see that we are losing our country. The stats prove it.

 

What stats and what do they prove?

[RickyM 10]

What stats and what do they prove?

 

These: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html

 

It will spread to Sheffield and elsewhere then, what happens then? Where will I be forced to move to?

 

I'm really concerned about it all and want to reverse it.

[999tigger 10]

These: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246288/Census-2011-UK-immigrant-population-jumps-THREE-MILLION-10-years.html

 

It will spread to Sheffield and elsewhere then, what happens then? Where will I be forced to move to?

 

I'm really concerned about it all and want to reverse it.

 

Notwithstanding its the DM, then which bit of that article concerns you? The fact that white people are the minority in London?

 

is it the colour of peoples skin that concerns you most , their religion or immigration in general

[RickyM 10]

Notwithstanding its the DM, then which bit of that article concerns you? The fact that white people are the minority in London?

 

is it the colour of peoples skin that concerns you most , their religion or immigration in general

 

It's to do with the type of people now living here, in increasing numbers and the future levels of immigrations I'm concerned about.

[chalga 10]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

They are all included in the UCL survey..........and it even gives 2 different scenarios of allocating those government services you are claiming are not even included:

 

) ‘Pure public goods and services’ represent 16.5% of total government

expenditures and include all public goods and services that are typically

non-rival in consumption (see subsection 1.1.4). In our first scenario (the

‘average effect scenario’), we apportion the cost of providing these goods

proportionately to the share of each group in the adult (16+) population.

 

You can see this on page 13/51

 

The tables of all the things they included start around page 40/51,and they clearly list in one of the tables all the government expenditure that you say they didn't.

 

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

 

Table A3...........Page 44 to be exact.

Edited November 10, 2015 by chalga