woopsie!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.
In preparation for Brexit, the government asked its Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to report on the economic and social impacts of EU migrants in the UK. The MAC commissioned Oxford Economics to analyse the fiscal implications of immigration using the most up-to-date data and sophisticated modelling techniques.
The resulting study, The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK, represents the most comprehensive assessment to date of the net contribution that all migrants make to the UK’s public finances.
The study finds that
- The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.
- The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 14:38:25)
I don't generally like dealing with counterfactuals but this is a popular perpetuated myth. Germany could not have 'won' world war 2 ever, the whole thing was doomed and futile from the start. Which became all the more evident halfway through - the German armed forces were spread far too thin and had major issues trying to control the populations in the countries it occupied. Even if you were to argue that they could pull of a miraculous military victory (no), the oppression, desolation and economic reality would have given rise to violent revolts everywhere. It could not last. As for the military conflict, the Germans didn't have anywhere close to the amount of resources and logistical support the allies enjoyed. From 1942 onwards it became a matter of time until they were defeated. Any change in tactics, strategy, circumstances or equipment would only delay the inevitable. The only thing that could have theoretically saved their armed forces would have been the development of a nuclear bomb, but thankfully the German scientists were way, way off the mark on the conceptual design nevermind engineering one. Still, subsequently controlling a population that vastly outnumbered the nazis would have been impossible.Dilbert_X wrote:
Technologically the Germans were way ahead of everyone else, by years or decades.
Without Hitlers poor strategy and poor decision making on technological issues they could easily have won the war.
But no, he decreed jet fighters should be used as bombers, a small number of heavy tanks should be built instead of a large number of light tanks etc.
Invading Russia, failing to have a heavy bomber force and putting resources into capital ships instead of aircraft carriers did not work out.
The first step to getting rid of a 'culture of poverty' is to actually lift people out of poverty.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think it is naive of a lot of the left to think that if you can improve people's material conditions they will then become functioning members of society and not instead be still dysfunctional people but with more money. And training people to get out of the culture of poverty takes time, patience, and more authoritarianism than people are comfortable with or would be legal.
Last edited by Larssen (2020-02-26 14:42:42)
read the report. they contribute more than the average UK citizen.Dilbert_X wrote:
The average person contributes little to the tax system. Low paid migrants with large families are typically net drains.
When they're sending their earnings and child support payments back to Poland they probably aren't contributing much.
aren't you obsessed with population stats?With Britain’s population ageing, the country could do with an influx of younger members to its labour force. If net migration were reduced to the Tories’ target of fewer than 100,000 people per year by 2030, every 1,000 people of prime working age (20-64) in Britain would have to support 405 people over the age of 65. At the present level of net migration, however, those 1,000 people would have to support only 389. This gap of 16 more pension-aged people rises to 44 by 2050. The middle-aged voters who tend to support the Conservatives today are the exact cohort whose pensions are at risk of shrinking if their desired immigration policies were put into practice.
i suppose it's so much better when it's home grown and the top 15% all send their taxable income to off-shore accounts. let's blame the net-contributing humble migrant plumber or medical researcher.Dilbert_X wrote:
When they're sending their earnings and child support payments back to Poland they probably aren't contributing much.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 14:45:34)
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 14:53:51)
If a country can't survive without endless population growth there's something structurally wrong with it.uziq wrote:
aren't you obsessed with population stats?With Britain’s population ageing, the country could do with an influx of younger members to its labour force. If net migration were reduced to the Tories’ target of fewer than 100,000 people per year by 2030, every 1,000 people of prime working age (20-64) in Britain would have to support 405 people over the age of 65. At the present level of net migration, however, those 1,000 people would have to support only 389. This gap of 16 more pension-aged people rises to 44 by 2050. The middle-aged voters who tend to support the Conservatives today are the exact cohort whose pensions are at risk of shrinking if their desired immigration policies were put into practice.
and, again, they do jobs for wages that the locals do not want to take. let's all punch down on the office janitors in their ethnic dress!!!and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 14:58:22)
yes, that problem is called people like you who took every state-provided benison for free and then didn't contribute anything to it over your working life. free school, healthcare, university, job training ... moves to australia to complain about the net contributions of immigrating europeans. OK!Dilbert_X wrote:
If a country can't survive without endless population growth there's something structurally wrong with it.uziq wrote:
aren't you obsessed with population stats?With Britain’s population ageing, the country could do with an influx of younger members to its labour force. If net migration were reduced to the Tories’ target of fewer than 100,000 people per year by 2030, every 1,000 people of prime working age (20-64) in Britain would have to support 405 people over the age of 65. At the present level of net migration, however, those 1,000 people would have to support only 389. This gap of 16 more pension-aged people rises to 44 by 2050. The middle-aged voters who tend to support the Conservatives today are the exact cohort whose pensions are at risk of shrinking if their desired immigration policies were put into practice.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 15:00:22)
Yes, easy to calculate a net positive contribution if you assume migrants are going to retire back to their home country, so their retirement and end of life healthcare costs are incurred somewhere else.Second, as a group of predominantly young adults,
the expected retirement costs associated with the later years of these migrants’
lives are reduced by the fact that a large proportion tend to leave the UK again
before reaching retirement.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 15:07:35)
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 15:24:28)
a contribution which is +£28,000 more than the locals. if anything this strikes me as a good reason to get rid of large swathes of the natives, not the converse.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's no prospect of non-EEA migrants going anywhere, the report conveniently skips over that one.
EEA migrants - pretty hard to project 50 years into the future - which the report very confidently does to prove a tiny net contribution.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 15:18:56)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-02-26 15:27:57)
also what does that even mean? from the migrants' perspective they are moving to a foreign country to pay 20% (or more) of their income tax towards caring towards a nation of unhealthy, undernourished, under-exercised strangers. they pay the same tax bill and contribute to things like the NHS for the benefit of their host country. what's the problem here? imagine being a healthy, well-nourished dane and having to watch english chavs waddle about eating microwave meals -- and then paying more than them towards their own health care!I'd expect migrants/temporary workers should make more contribution on average, since they won't include the old, sick, disabled, students etc while the local population does.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-26 15:37:27)
I'm 6'2", lets move past this now.uziq wrote:
let’s just admit that you’re a little xenophobic runt, you know it’s irrational but it gives you as much pleasure as the 10,000th re-run of ‘only fools and horses’ that you swinish expats watch whilst slowly cancering under the sun.
Last edited by uziq (2020-02-27 01:48:26)
